Posts Tagged ‘drought’
Are Water Agencies About to Drown in Positive Polling?
A recent survey conducted by the Municipal Water District of Orange County found that 93 percent of the 500 respondents feel Orange County’s water supply is somewhat reliable or very reliable. That’s big news to us in the business of influencing public behavior, because a similar question asked in the agency’s 2008 survey found that only 27 percent felt OC had a reliable supply.
So can us communicators take credit for the nearly four-fold jump in public perception? After all, our water supply is just as reliable today (or unreliable depending how you look at it) than it was three years ago. We humbly say, “not so fast.”
Water Weekly 3: Back to School
What were the three biggest California water stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here every week, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
Elementary Errors Plague Delta Plan
Our teachers told us we needed to know the basics first, then we’d get to the stuff we liked. (Like recess!) We’ve been looking at the fifth draft of the Delta Stewardship Council’s Delta Plan and we’re ready to rap some knuckles with our ruler (if that’s not considered child abuse now). It seems they weren’t paying attention to the basics – you know, stuff like how we get less water in dry years than wet ones. Pay attention, kids, this is going to be on the final: Draft #5 gets a D and can’t be allowed to be the final draft – it’s time to act!
Here’s a little knuckle-rapping by two who got the basics right
ACWA wants you to send a letter like this to a list like this
Water Weekly 3: Eco-hawks, Oldtimers and Stinkers
What were the three biggest California water stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here every week, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
“Virtual River” Runs Dry
The eco-hawks often talk of a “virtual river” that could supply Californians all the water they need, if only they’d conserve more. It seems the virtual river flows through real farm land, given all the talk about how farmers waste water. Well, in San Diego County, the virtual river theory is getting pretty parched as farmers who are doing all the right things – installing drip irrigation, planting high-value crops – are facing economic ruin because even with the best practices, water’s still going up to $1,400 per acre foot next year.
Let the California Farm Bureau Federation tell you more.
Fact-Checking Democrats’ Water Statement
Last week’s Congressional water hearing in Fresno, if nothing else, produced thousands of acre-feet of hyperbole – if politically expedient but morally challenged statements can be measured that way. The Natural Resource Defense Council’s particularly reprehensible propaganda is discussed in the post below; this post focuses on an article covering the position of Congressional Democrats regarding the hearing, “California Lawmakers Seek Statewide Approach to Water Supply.”
The article quotes Grace Napolitano as the lead spokesperson for the Dems. We like Napolitano on water issues. Her district runs from East Los Angeles to Pomona, so she understands that her constituents are largely dependent on water delivered to Southern California from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Colorado River. As the former chair and current ranking member of the House Subcommittee on Water and Power, she has done a lot to support a Delta solution and to bring federal dollars to groundwater clean-up, recycling and desalination efforts.
Fortunately for our positive view of Napolitano (just on water issues, mind you), the statement that we’re fact-checking here was not attributed to the Congresswoman, so we must credit it to the editors and writers at Environmental Protection, where the article appeared. Here it is:
Last year, the state reported that the closure of salmon fishing cost the economy at least $250 million. Recent studies have estimated that nearly 2,000 salmon fishermen have been unable to work over the last three years, job loss figures comparable to the number of farm workers who could not work due to pumping restrictions during the drought. (emphasis added)
On its face, this statement is true. Job losses among salmon fishers are comparable to job losses among farm workers who couldn’t find work because drought and environmental restrictions shut of the spigot to many Central Valley farms. The comparison is this: Salmon industry job losses are probably one percent or so of agricultural job losses.
In the town of Mendota alone, which I visited when its unemployment rate hit 38 percent at the peak of the weather-and-regulatory drought, if we assume half of the town’s population of 10,000 is made up of workers, then 1,900 people were unemployed in that town alone. There are towns like Mendota every few miles throughout the Central Valley, so the editors of Environmental Protection are guilty of minimizing human suffering for political gain, a not uncommon but always unwise tactic.
Besides, there is no consensus whatsoever that the decline in California salmon populations can be tied to pumping water south from the Delta. In fact, the consensus seems to be shifting to blaming any number of other causes, including ammonia from sewage treatment plants, predation by non-native striped bass, oceanic conditions’ impact on salmon food supply, overpopulation of protected predatory sea mammals, and others.
Everything I’ve learned in a career in public affairs and strategic communications tells me the complex debate over California water supply and the challenging (and likely impossible) effort to find a course of action that pleases all constituents is not furthered by this sort of destructive and divisive language.
Water Weekly 3: Taxing Times?
What were the three biggest California water stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here every Thursday, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
Sucker Punch
Smoky rooms still rule – except now it’s probably medical marijuana smoke filling rooms like the one the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Center for Biological Diversity met in to hammer out a Santa Ana sucker deal. The Center, an enviro litigation mill, had sued to expand the sucker’s critical habitat within the Santa Ana River, and the closed-door settlement added over 10 percent more land, which will gravely impact 12 water agencies’ beneficial use river flows. The agencies have implemented a successful sucker protection plan, so this is case of no good deed going unpunished.
Read about the 12 agencies’ plan to sue the Service here
Read how the settlement “would literally shut down” the local economy
Watered-Down Truth
It’s interesting that the Natural Resource Defense Council’s blog is called “Switchboard,” since switchboards use electricity, and electricity is, you know, destroying the planet. Be that as it may, the blog is often a source for remarkably thoughtful dissertations from an environmental perspective, so I read it regularly.
Today, however, Switchboard switched me back to the Cold War, when the Soviet propaganda machine was churning out half-truths nonstop. How can one forget the Pravda headline about a baseball game that said “Soviets come in second, US next to last,” without mentioning only two teams were playing?
NRDC staffer Doug Obegi is at the same game with his post today, “Important Facts for Today’s Congressional Hearing on California Water Supply.” His use of the word “facts” might as well have a big red star on it, for it’s a very loose interpretation of the whole concept of truth. (For a more balanced report on the hearing, read this Fresno Bee article.)
Here’s his first “fact:” “ESA protections have had no impact on water allocations this year.” That’s like saying it rained a little after Noah built his ark. The 2010-2011 rain year was one of the wettest in history, with nearly 80 feet of snow falling in the Sierras, so more than enough water is flowing through the Sacrament0-San Joaquin Delta to allow the pumps to run, despite Endangered Species Act protections on Delta smelt and salmon. It wasn’t that way last year and it’s not likely to be that way next year.
Besides, it’s only April of “this year.” Who knows where we’ll be in August or December?
Obegi also points to the “fact” that “Recently, lack of demand completely shut down the Delta pumps.” Are we to believe that everyone in every Southern California metropolis suddenly packed up and moved to Pago Pago, Tahiti? That every farmer in the Central Valley decided that fallowing fields was the new way to sudden wealth? Of course not – it’s the Noah’s ark thing again, showing the author is not afraid to make a dishonest point twice.
Then there’s Obegi’s argument that protecting the endangered species of the Delta protects jobs. That’s true – but just barely. If one focuses only on the Delta, and only on the fisheries jobs in the Delta – a $250 million industry in the best of years – we can nod our heads and give Obegi a kudo. But, pardon the pun, the Delta fisheries industry is small fry by California standards. Pumping curtailments in 2009 and early 2010 caused billions of dollars in losses to Central Valley agriculture alone, and forced water users throughout much of the state to pay billions more for water due to rate increases.
There are many more similar corruptions of the public dialog in the piece, but I can’t end without bringing up Obegi’s characterization of the 2009 legislative water package. Laer Pearce & Associates used our public affairs contacts and skills to shore up support for the package among the Orange County delegation, so we can take some credit in its passage – which is why Obegi’s characterization is so offensive. Here it is:
California Law Requires Reducing Reliance on the Delta and Strengthening Environmental Protections
In 2009, California adopted a landmark package of water legislation, and established a state policy of reducing reliance on water exports from the Delta and investing in regional tools like water efficiency, wastewater recycling, groundwater cleanup, and stormwater capture. Instead of waiving environmental laws, this legislation strengthened environmental protections in the Bay-Delta. These policies are the cornerstone of a 21st Century water policy for California, and are the most cost-effective way for California to prepare for the next drought.
What the legislation actually required was recognition of the “co-equal goals” of, first, protecting and enhancing the Delta’s ecosystem and, first (since that what co-equal means), ensuring a reliable water supply. He’s right that the legislation heightened protections on the Delta (so why is he so freaked out?), but he’s wrong in saying the environmental protections are the cornerstone of 21st Century water policy for the state. The cornerstone is the co-equal goals, and trying to pretend it’s otherwise is just like pretending the Soviet team came in ahead of the U.S. one in that baseball game Pravda covered.
Obegi should apologize to his readers for assuming they’re a bunch of rubes instead of well-informed citizens. And maybe the NRDC should commit to telling the truth instead of propagating propaganda.
Water Weekly 3: So long, farewell, auf wiedersehen, adieu
What were the three biggest California water stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here every Thursday, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
The Long Goodbye to the Drought
News that Gov. Brown was going to declare the drought over leaked like December’s deluges. We started hearing about it days before the formal announcement, and we figured he was waiting for the Wednesday Sierra snowpack reading. We were right – the announcement came Wednesday night, shortly after DWR reported snow levels in the Sierras were to die for. The Guv did the right thing by reminding us all to conserve, but disappointingly (not surprisingly!) said nothing about the need to fix the ongoing regulatory drought.
Read Brown’s drought-ending proclamation here
Happy New Year, You’re the Bane of the World’s Existence
The Center for Biological Depravity…er, Diversity, announced its top 11 priorities for bringing the U.S. economy to a halt in 2011. It was going to go with 12, but making sure Jerry Brown appointed an ultra-enviro to head California’s Resources Agency has already been crossed off the list.
As you’d imagine, this year’s agenda is filled with plans to protect a whole slew of species from various man-made dangers. If you’re a wolf or a bluefin tuna, this just might be your year. Humans…not so much. After taking baby steps last year, the Center hid in the middle of its list a rather Maoist priority to “Challenge the Overpopulation Paradigm.” That’s right Joe Citizen, you and your 2.3 adorable kids (and their future kids) now have big fat target on your back. As if an economic meltdown and global terrorism weren’t enough.
We’ll continue to encourage other groups to tackle overpopulation this year. We’ll distribute hundreds of thousands of condoms and ramp up the overpopulation dialogue through high-profile projects, including a study on the connection between overpopulation and diminishing water supplies in the Lower Colorado River Basin, the Center’s unique newsletter, Pop X, and targeted actions to Congress.
We’ll be interested to see their study on the Colorado River, which is facing challenges. But that’s more so from several years of drought than too many newborns from too many “What Happens in Vegas…” nights.
Maybe the Center is grabbing for headlines to boost its coffers. Maybe it’s tired of fighting on the environmental front lines and has chosen to try the back door. Maybe it just doesn’t care for chubby babies with good short games. Maybe all of the above.
Either way, it’s time to come to grips with the fact that you and your family are the bane of the world’s existence. Happy New Year!
Read the rest of the Center’s 2011 priorities here.
Water Weekly 3: Drama in California’s water news
What were the three biggest California water stories of the past seven days? Well, the news-heads and policy wonks here at Laer Pearce & Associates have compiled them for you here. You’ll find the Big Three here every Thursday, or you can follow LPAWater on Twitter for up-to-the-minute news and analysis. You can also sign up to receive the Weekly 3 via email here. This week:
The Junk-science-man Cometh
The pseudo scientists at the Environmental Working Group have been at it again, drumming up public hysteria (and funds, presumably) by publishing yet another sloppy “scientific” analysis of nasty stuff in our water. This time it’s Chromium 6, and hundreds of newspapers picked up the story, most not bothering to note that there’s no data whatsoever linking cancer to Chromium 6 in water supplies. Or that cancer levels in the famous Chromium 6 town of Hinkley CA are below normal. Still, EPA announced that based on EWG’s study, it would look into Chromium 6 in water. Sigh.
Negative Messages Create Skeptics
Doom-and-gloom emotional messages that paint pictures of the sky falling or the earth burning don’t work well when you are trying to change public opinion. That’s what a new study by two Berkeley professors found when they studied the impacts of fact-based vs. emotion-based global warming messages.
The professors had one group of subjects read stories that began with facts, but ended with apocalyptic warnings, while the other half read positive stories that focused on solving problems. Those who read the positive stories were less skeptical than the group exposed to doom-and-gloom messaging.
