Clarity Blog

The folks behind the Sacramento Delta water conveyance tunnel have a new message out that has a familiar ring:  Jobs. Heard that much lately?

Drilling large tunnels to divert water around the Delta would create more than 129,000 jobs, almost all of them during the seven-year construction period, according to a recent analysis.

The report by a University of California, Berkeley, economist does not examine how the peripheral canal or tunnel plan might create or destroy jobs in other ways, such as the proposed conversion of tens of thousands of acres of Delta farmland to wetland habitat. (Read more here)

We’ve used that UC Berkeley economist, David Sunding, ourselves and we know his work is solid and these are numbers that will stand up, come testing time.

But there was a powerful and timely message missed here, and that’s too bad.  We’ve all heard stats recently about the cost per job of jobs created by the federal stimulus – from the hundreds of thousands of dollars each to over $1 million for every shovel-ready (or crony-ready) job generated.  A little quick math here – the $12 billion estimated cost of the tunnels divided by 129,000 jobs … wow, that’s just $93,023 per job, which is pretty darn cheap when you consider the number of attorneys that will be working on the project.

Lesson:  When talking about jobs generation, whether it’s about tunnels or anything else, dig a little deeper. Put the numbers in a context that’s current and more people will remember more of what you said.

Our new water Weekly 3 is out – and can be read here.  As faithful readers have come to expect, it’s full of the latest water news … but this time with a bit more bite than usual.  Check out this entry:

Sharks Found In MWD Water!

Some of the most dangerous sharks on the planet have “Esq.” after their names, and a particularly bloodthirsty species was found this week hunting for food in MWD’s water supply. The San Francisco class action law firm of Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhomik & Greatwhite (just kidding on that last name) sued MWD “in the interest of millions of consumers” (wink, wink) claiming MWD’s use of “a hydrofluosilicic acid drug” for fluoridation may lead people to have fewer cavities without their consent. Really. The firm’s news release threatens other water districts “across the country,” so watch out for sharks in your water!

For the rest of the Weekly 3 (and links about the lawsuit and that potentially lucrative hydrofluosilicic acid drug), here’s that link again.

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.

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.

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.

Read EWG’s analysis here

Read a typical rebuttal here

Read about Hinkley’s cancer rate here

(more…)

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:

Back to the Drawing Board

This week, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service teetered in the latest Sacramento Delta teeter-totter, as did its friends among the more radical environmental groups.  Judge Oliver Wanger threw out the Service’s current Delta smelt biological opinion – basically the fed’s fishy protection plan – calling portions of it arbitrary, capricious, biased and, overall, a failure in justifying the pumping cutbacks that have hurt farmers and city-dwellers alike.  Cheers and howls followed – but we know what’s next:  just more studies and more strife.  We have to ask, though: Just how much more lousy federal science can we tolerate?

Breeze through the 225-page decision here

Read the best news coverage of the decision here

And for the “fish not folks” side, read this

(more…)

Judge Oliver Wanger today dropped a bomb on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and its supporters in the environmental movement by ruling that the Service’s efforts to protect the delta smelt by cutting off water supplies to folks and farmers from San Jose to San Diego lacked scientific justification.  In a 225-page decision issued late this afternoon, Wanger threw out the biological opinion (“BiOp”) written by the Service, and used by the Service to severely limit pumping of Sacramento-San Joaquin delta water to thirsty users to the south.

“[T]he public cannot afford sloppy science and uni-directional prescriptions that ignore California’s water needs,” Wanger wrote, as he endorsed some of the Service’s science as just fine, but called other elements “arbitrary and capricious,” that it “represents a failure to use the best available science,” and that the Service failed to address or explain “material bias” in the data.  He also said these mistakes “fatally taint” other scientific findings used by the Service to cut water deliveries.

(more…)

Re-cap from the MWDOC Water Policy Forum

Future reliability of water supplied from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is top-of-mind for water wonks across the state.  At the Municipal Water District of Orange County’s (MWDOC) Water Policy Forum and Dinner last month, the topic was the center of keynote speaker Gregory Wilkinson’s remarks.  Wilkinson, a lawyer who specializes in water allocation cases, warns that the feds aren’t budging from their stance that puts the needs of the Delta Smelt above the water needs of millions of Californians, but water agencies aren’t giving up on alternatives that help both fish and people.

Laer attended the dinner with iPhone in hand to live-tweet Wilkinson’s remarks.  Those tweets have been packaged as an article in the current issue of MWDOC’s E-currents newsletter, which can be read in its entirely here.

Every week, our water industry clients and more than 500 others turn to LPAWater on Twitter for the latest important news and opinion in the world of water.

The mega-tweet of the week was this one, posted at 4:27 p.m. on July 21:  Draft SWRCB flow recommendations for #SacDelta call for more flow into & thru, particularly in winter & spring – not good for SoCal.

We’ve been waiting for the State Water Resources Control Board to issue its legislature-mandated report on the health of the Sacramento Delta, hoping the Board would highlight the many stressors on the Delta that have nothing to do with water exports (ammonia, invasive species, farm run-off), and to an extent it did just that. But its focus was on the need to dramatically cut water exports to San Joaquin Valley farms and cities from the Bay Area to the border that are dependent on Delta water – specifically, cuts of up to 30% of exports from the Delta and 70% of diversions north of the Delta. Cuts of that magnitude would have dramatic quality of life and economic impacts on Southern California.

Another LPAWater tweet, published Friday at about noon, presented a good response: SF Chron calls for “gradual … shift in #water use thru conservation, tech & better planning,” not harsh cuts. http://tinyurl.com/2v7nobg

We like that idea, and we also like the emphasis the San Francisco Chronicle made that this is a draft study, and is  subject to change.

I remember those blissful days a decade or so ago before the Sacramento Delta settled like a cold, wet blanket over my consciousness.  The bliss!

Now not a day goes by when the Delta (Twitter hashtag #SacDelta) isn’t talked about, thought about, flown over or toured.  It is at the crux of whatever solution we attain for California’s water problems, so it touches policy discussions we have with our water district, land development and municipal clients. It’s simply become the most important place in all of California.

And coming up next Tuesday is an important hearing at the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee (9:30 a.m., State Capitol, room 437) into how things are going with the Delta Stewardship Council and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. These two entities are critical to the answer to one of the most significant policy discussions of our times:  Will California be able to maintain a reliable water supply?  For those of you as interested in the topic as we are, here’s the agenda for the meeting:

A G E N D A

I. Opening Comments

II. Panel 1 – Agency Perspectives

• Lester Snow, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency
• Phil Isenberg, Chair, Delta Stewardship Council

Panel 2 – BDCP Steering Committee Stakeholders’ Perspectives

• Laura King Moon, State Water Contractors
• Ann Hayden, Environmental Defense Fund
• Melinda Terry, North Delta Water Agency

Panel 3 – Perspectives on Integration: BDCP & Delta Counties’ HCP/NCCPs

• Don Nottoli, Delta Stewardship Council, Delta Protection Commission, Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
• Jim Provenza, Yolo County Board of Supervisors
• Kim Delfino, Defenders of Wildlife

Panel 4 – Other Interested Stakeholders’ Perspectives

• Barry Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Osha Meserve, Reclamation District 999, Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge Association

III. Public Comment

The Water Policy Oracles will be reading the tea leaves on this hearing for some time to come.  We’ll keep you posted on what we hear, mostly via our LPAWater Twitter page.