False Data Abounds

California Drought Information Game:

False Data Out-Markets Ag

By Laurie Greene, Editor and Producer

 

At “The Truth About the Drought” forum, organized by Assemblymember Jim Patterson recently in Clovis, CA, moderator John Broeske, executive director of Families Protecting The Valley, said he thinks Ag is doing really badly on the information game.

“I think that we are getting out-marketed in messaging in the state of California,” said Broeske. “I think a lot of the people in the Central Valley know things that the people in Southern California and in the Bay Area, don’t know.”

Broeske continued, “I don’t blame those people for not knowing because they’re being told over and over again about the ‘80% number’ for Ag water use; and the ‘2%’ Ag contributes to the economy’. These are not real numbers, but people hear them repeatedly, so it’s not hard to understand they believe it.”

“I think the environmentalists want people to believe the 80% figure,” Broeske stated, “because it’s a lot easier to demand water from us if it appears we are using it all. But we’re not, and it’s hard for us to get the message out that these numbers aren’t true.”

Broeske did not know the best way to get the message out, but said he tries to correct people when they get it wrong. He suggested correcting online articles in the comment section to empower more people with the right numbers as ammunition for when they get into conversations. “You’ve got to fight back; if you let people use these false numbers over and over again, nothing is ever going to change.”

As false data out-markets ag in messaging, Broeske said water usage accountability is unequivalent. “Farmers are getting blasted for raising almonds and using too many gallons per almond,” said Broeske. “But, there’s no article about how many gallons it takes to raise a smelt. How many acre-feet for salmon? How many is too many? I think those questions have to be asked.”

“California is spending four million dollars of water per salmon!” Broeske declared. “Should there be some accountability there? How much water are we going to spend on one salmon? At least we get almonds at the end of the farming process. That’s what accountability means; we’ve got to create some rules about how much water is too much to save one fish.”

“I think the only way the public can demand accountability from the government and the scientists is to win elections,” he conjectured. “We are not winning the marketing war on these water usage numbers, so voters keep electing the same people who tell them the wrong numbers, and there’s nothing we can do if they keep getting elected. It’s a tough battle.”

“We are outnumbered,” Broeske said, “and I don’t know how we can overcome their marketing. They’re not even buying marketing, like billboards or advertising—just newspaper articles and news stories they are quoted in—so their marketing costs them nothing.”

“For us to win the market,” Broeske concluded, “we have to buy billboards and ads, and have enough money to do so.”

2016-09-13T14:11:41-07:00July 16th, 2015|

Opinion Shift: Urbanites Do Not Support Ag

Aubrey Bettencourt Says Ag Industry Missed Important Opinion Shift

 

By Charmayne Hefley, California Ag Today Associate Editor

It was thought that the agricultural industry in California could rely on the public sector to rally behind them during this devastating drought, once consumers were ordered to undergo severe water cutbacks themselves. “That didn’t happen,” says Aubrey Bettencourt, executive director of the California Water Alliance and third generation farmer in Kings County, where she farms with her dad.

“Back in 2008/2009,” Bettencourt said, “surface water cuts due to the Endangered Species Act really came into prominence more than the 1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA). At the time, the ag community anticipated that as soon as urbanites experienced similar severe water cuts, they would rally to our side with the common understanding that we all have to make these very arbitrary reductions.”

“Earlier this year, Governor Brown issued a mandatory water cut of 25 percent, on average, to the urban sector, with a range from 8 to 39 percent depending on location,” explained Bettencourt. “Urbanites did not sympathize with the agricultural community on their shared loss of so much water. Instead, they pointed the finger at Ag, called for a rope and a pitchfork, and wanted ag to take even more of a cut–not understanding that Ag had already endured a 100 percent reduction,” she said. “The California ag community thought they shared a connection with the urban community regarding Ag’s importance.”

“I think this a really fine example of how agriculture has missed the societal shift away from the agrarian-based society to a consumer-focused nation in which most people are four to six generations away from the farm,” Bettancourt noted. “And the vast majority of people don’t understand what Ag does and why production agriculture is beneficial to society as a whole.”

“As such, the general population is able to make claims on the industry from perspectives that lack understanding,” she stated, “calling for requirements that are not beneficial to the industry, and ultimately not beneficial to the population as a whole. Urbanites do not support ag, but this disconnect has developed over time,” said Bettancourt.

2016-05-31T19:28:10-07:00July 14th, 2015|

WADE: LET THE WATER FLOW!

Let The Water Flow:

Mike Wade Urges Water Board To Let Reclamation Pay Back Borrowed Water

By Laurie Greene, California Ag Today Editor

Mike Wade, executive director of the California Farm Water Coalition, discussed with California Ag Today, his article for the Coalition’s Blog, entitled, “State Water Resources Control Board Could Cost California’s Agricultural Economy $4.5 Billion.”

“A number of San Joaquin Valley farmers have been working the last couple of years to set aside emergency water supplies through conservation and water purchases on the open market,” began Wade. “That water is set aside in the San Luis Reservoir and currently being borrowed, if you will, by the Bureau of Reclamation to help meet their obligations and ultimately the temperature management plan for winter run Chinook salmon.”

Wade said the Bureau’s water obligations also include provisions for summer agriculture south of the Delta, as well as refuge management for numerous listed terrestrial species like the Giant Garter Snake.

Wade estimates the loaned water is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Lending farmers include those who own land on the Westside of the San Joaquin Valley, Sacramento Valley rice farmers who fallowed land this year to make supplies available for transfers and Friant-area farmers seeking to augment a zero water allocation for the second year in a row.

“We believe the Bureau has an obligation to pay that water back this fall, and we’re urging the State Water Resources Control Board to let that payback happen.” In his article, Wade reported that Reclamation would pay back the water from supplies stored in Lake Shasta as soon as temperature goals for winter run Chinook salmon were met.

Regarding accountability, Wade said, “I believe the Bureau intends to pay it back, but we want the public to understand what’s happening. We want transparency so we can follow this obligation and make sure this fall, when water becomes available, the Bureau follows through to pay it back. People don’t forget.”

Built and operated jointly by the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of California, the San Luis Reservoir is at 44% capacity today, according to the California Department of Water Resources’ California Data Exchange Center, but the supply is already divided and allocated. Wade explained, “The water that is currently in San Luis Reservoir under the Bureau of Reclamation’s control is almost exclusively owned by growers who have conserved it or purchased it on the open market. The remainder belongs to the State Water Project and its users. So, there is little or no federally-owned water in San Luis at this time.”

Wade said, “There are a number of factors that contribute to the 4.5 – 4.9 billion dollar projected cost for San Joaquin Valley farmers. First is the actual value of the water that farmers have already set aside. Second is the monetary obligations farmers have contracted to pay Sacramento Valley rice growers for transferred water. The third component is the actual value of potential crop and orchard losses if that water isn’t paid back and farmers lose out on their ability to keep their farms going.”

Wade urged the State Water Resources Control Board, “to facilitate this complex and unprecedented collaboration” and allow Reclamation to release compensatory water as soon as possible.

Let the water flow!

 

Sources: Interview with Mike Wade, California Farm Water Coalition; “State Water Resources Control Board Could Cost California’s Agricultural Economy $4.5 Billion,” by Mike Wade, California Farm Water Coalition; Bureau of Reclamation; California Department of Water Resources

Featured Image: San Luis Reservoir-Empty, California Farm Water Coalition

2016-05-31T19:28:12-07:00June 26th, 2015|

Valadao Addresses Western Water Reliability

Valadao, California Republicans, Introduce Legislation to Improve Western Water Reliability

Today, Congressmen David G. Valadao (CA-21) introduced a bill to modernize water policies in California and throughout the entire Western United States with the support of the entire California Republican delegation, the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Chairman of the Western Caucus.

 

H.R. 2898, the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015 aims to make more water available to families, farmers, and communities in California and bordering Western states. The dedication of vast quantities of water to protect certain species of fish listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a significant obstacle hindering water delivery in Central and Southern California. H.R. 2898, will require federal agencies to use current and reliable data when making regulatory decisions, which in turn will provide more water for communities in need.

Additionally, Rep. Valadao’s legislation will provide federal regulators with direction and flexibility to capture water during periods of greater precipitation, which can be used to increase California’s water supplies dramatically. Furthermore, the bill will cut red tape holding back major water storage projects that have been authorized for over a decade, which will aid the entire Western United States during dry years.

Congressman David Valadao (CA-21), the author of the legislation, said, “California’s drought has devastated communities throughout the Central Valley and now the consequences are extending throughout the country. Inaction will result in the collapse of our domestic food supply.” He continued, “Congress cannot make it rain but we can enact policies that expand our water infrastructure, allow for more water conveyance, and utilize legitimate science to ensure a reliable water supply for farmers and families.”

Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) stated, “The tragedy of the current drought is no longer isolated to California’s Central Valley, and its response must include tangible solutions that provide us the opportunity to pursue the California Dream. Today is an important step to helping restore the water our communities desperately need by more fully utilizing the most sophisticated water system in the world to quench the robust economic opportunity California families, farmers, workers, and businesses all need.”

“My western colleagues have worked hard to collaborate on a common sense bill that helps people,” stated Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT), Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. “Communities are suffering and we are putting forward a creative solution to address those needs. I look forward to working on a bipartisan basis in the House and Senate to move this legislation forward.”

“Having personally visited California’s Central Valley on this matter, I can attest to the dire situation facing California with the drought,” said Western Caucus Chairman and Natural Resources Vice-Chairman Cynthia Lummis (WY-at large). “This situation demands congressional action to tackle the man-made barriers that are needlessly choking off water supplies crucial not just for California jobs but for the food on American tables. I am pleased to work with my Californian colleagues to ensure we also seize this opportunity to address water issues west wide through water project permit streamlining, enhanced water storage, and protecting state-endowed water rights that are increasingly under attack at the federal level.”

“The water bill we are introducing today will help California families and businesses that are suffering in our ongoing drought,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (CA-42). “No legislation will magically end our drought, but by passing this bill, we can take a step in the right direction and work in a collaborative way to enact meaningful solutions. Our bill takes important steps that are the direct result of bipartisan and bicameral conversations, and I look forward to the continued engagement with my House colleagues as well as action from the Senate in the near future. Despite what opponents might say, our legislation does not gut – let alone modify – the Endangered Species Act. Rather, our bill ensures our critical water infrastructure is operated using sound science in order to prevent wasting precious water in ways that do not benefit listed species but come at a high cost to Californians.”

“California’s devastating drought is hurting our ag economy and food supply nationwide,” said Congressman Jeff Denham (CA-10). “This bill provides both the short- and long-term solutions that the Central Valley needs, beginning with more storage. It includes two pieces of legislation I’ve introduced to study and eliminate the threat of predator fish and to increase storage in New Melones Reservoir. We can’t keep waiting on the Senate or the President to get engaged and provide Californians with the solutions they need to survive.”

“This bill was designed to address the underlying causes of the drought in a pragmatic and bipartisan manner,” said Congressman Steve Knight (CA-25). “There is no simple answer to this problem. But California needs rational solutions, not more water rations.”

“This balanced legislation improves water access for Californians around the state by using improved science to time water deliveries, preserving water rights and moving forward on new surface storage facilities,”  said Congressman Doug LaMalfa (CA-01). It protects the most fundamental water rights of all, area of origin rights, ensuring that Northern Californians who live where our state’s water originates have access to it. Californians have spoken clearly in support of investment in new surface storage projects, and this measure fulfills the promise to voters by advancing projects that would generate over one million acre-feet of water, enough for eight million Californians. We’ll continue to refine this proposal as it moves through the process, but I am proud to cosponsor a bill that addresses both short- and long-term needs of all Californians and supports continued economic growth.”

“Droughts are nature’s fault; water shortages are our fault,” said Congressman Tom McClintock (CA-04). “For a generation, we have failed to build the facilities needed to store water from wet years to have it in dry ones and radical environmental laws have squandered the water we did store. Our water shortage is caused by a shortage of sensible water policy. This bill begins fixing that.”

Congressman Devin Nunes (CA-22) explained, “Facing an annual water deficit of 2.5 million acre-feet south of the Delta, the San Joaquin Valley urgently needs whatever relief it can get. And once again, the House of Representatives is taking action to assist our long-suffering communities. As this entirely preventable water crisis continues to ravage Valley farms and devastate our economy, I urge the Senate to finally begin supporting the House’s consistent efforts to roll back the disastrous government regulations that prioritize fish over families.”

Original cosponsors of Congressman Valadao’s legislation include Reps. Ken Calvert (CA-42), Paul Cook (CA-08), Jim Costa (CA-16), Jeff Denham (CA-10), Duncan Hunter (CA-50), Darrell E. Issa (CA-49), Stephen Knight (CA-25), Dough LaMalfa (CA-01), Kevin McCarthy (CA-23), Tom McClintock (CA-04), Devin Nunes (CA-22), Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48), Edward R. Royce (CA-39), Mimi Walters (CA-45), Mark E. Amodei (NV-02), Rodney Davis (IL-13), Mario Diaz-Balart (FL-25), Cresent Hardy (NV-04), David P. Joyce (OH-14), Cynthia M. Lummis (WY-AL), Dan Newhouse (WA-04), Michael K. Simpson (ID-02), Chris Stewart (UT-02), Scott Tipton (CO-03), and Ryan K. Zinke (MT-AL).

2016-05-31T19:28:13-07:00June 25th, 2015|

PLF On 9th Circuit Biological Opinion

PLF statement on 9th Circuit Upholding Delta Smelt Biological Opinion

Last Week, a panel of the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the federal government’s 2008 “biological opinion” for the delta smelt, a regulation under the Endangered Species Act has that triggered draconian restrictions on water deliveries from the federal and state water projects to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) attorneys represent some of the farmers in the case who are challenging the biological opinion as an abuse of federal power based on questionable science and shoddy regulatory procedures.

Damien Schiff, a principal attorney with PLF who represents farmers in the case, issued this statement today, in response to the Ninth Circuit’s ruling:

“The Ninth Circuit has done a reverse rain dance for California, practically guaranteeing that the impacts of our current drought will be more devastating,” said PLF Principal Attorney Damien Schiff.   

“The ruling gives judicial blessing to regulations that impose real punishment on people with only speculative benefits for a declining fish species.   Under these draconian regulations, water is withheld from farms, businesses and communities from the Central Valley to San Diego based on sloppy science and ideological agendas.    

“There’s a drought of common sense in the bureaucracies that impose these regulations – and in the perverse legal precedents that lead courts to uphold them.  In one notorious precedent, TVA v. Hill, the U.S. Supreme Court said the Endangered Species Act gives absolute priority to species over everything else, including the general welfare of the human community.    

We must all hope that California’s water crisis – made worse today by the Ninth Circuit – can prod the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider its past decisions that are leaving us so parched.    

Indeed, the one hopeful aspect of today’s ruling is there’s a possibility the smelt case could get to the Supreme Court.  There, it might result in a decision that turns the tide of environmental law away from imbalance and zealotry, and back toward sanity.”

2021-05-12T11:06:02-07:00March 17th, 2014|

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OVERREACHES HUMAN RIGHTS

The Endangered Species Act Turns 40

A Statement by Rob Rivett, President, Pacific Legal Foundation

This year the Endangered Species Act turns 40. President Richard Nixon, on December 28, 1973, signed into law one of the nation’s most powerful environmental laws.  The law vested authority in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to enforce a wave of new regulations, and create a new relationship between homo sapiens and other species.
Soon after its passage, the U.S. Supreme Court declared it the most comprehensive law ever passed for the protection of species and that ESA enforcement must occur “whatever the cost.”  Federal officials have used their power under the Act to regulate private property as if it were public land.
The degree to which the ESA has been successful is a matter of debate.  Of the estimated $3 billion of taxpayer funds necessary to fund the annual operation of the ESA, less than 1 percent of the species in North America have been recovered out of more than 1,400 that have been listed.  One undebatable fact is the law has created a flood of lawsuits, those filed to seek government acts, and those filed to limit them.
Since its founding in 1973 — the same year the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was enacted — Pacific Legal Foundation has been America’s watchdog in the courts to check and reverse government abuse of this and other environmental laws.
PLF has enough experience with the ESA to know that a well-intentioned law can completely turn the tables on common sense, sound science, and the fundamental freedoms of people.  PLF believes in responsible stewardship of our land, water, and air for the benefit of people, the environment, and the species that inhabit it.  The trouble comes when a law designed to help species harms the people who care for the environment — including farmers, ranchers, and foresters — those living and working in America’s “environment.”
The protection of the environment is only one of many competing and important social values in America.  In an orderly society, no single value can be exalted “whatever the cost.”  Environmental laws can and must be administered so as to safeguard, and not thwart, fundamental human needs and rights.  Therefore, Pacific Legal Foundation has assumed a leading role in protecting constitutionally established limits on governmental power and ensuring individual freedom.
Nearly 40 years after its enactment, the Federal Endangered Species Act remains one of the nation’s most potent threats to our constitutionally protected property rights.  Crafted by the Congress with the noble goal of saving species from extinction, and helping them to return to health, the law today has led to controversy and regulatory creep across our nation’s landscape.
Because Pacific Legal Foundation supports a balanced approach to environmental regulations — like the ESA, we’re taking the opportunity in 2013 to examine aspects of the law, with particular emphasis on past and current cases we’ve litigated.
During the course of the year, this landing page will feature PLF opinion articles, videos, podcasts, and news and information about current PLF cases.

Whether you are part of the “regulated community” or just a concerned citizen who values liberty and a thriving environment, I invite you to check in regularly on this page to see our latest postings and to give us your feedback.
Of course, as a nonprofit legal charity, Pacific Legal Foundation welcomes your charitable donations.
If you believe, as we do, that in protecting our nation’s environment, our constitutional rights should not be threatened or endangered by government agencies and activist groups, I invite you to become a supporter of PLF’s legal program.

2021-05-12T11:06:03-07:00August 22nd, 2013|

ANOTHER BIOLOGICAL OPINION CHALLENGE

New Biological Opinion for Yuba River Dams!

According to the Association of California Water Agencies, a federal court ordered a new biological opinion (BiOp) for Daguerre Point and Englebright Dams this week.
U.S. District Court Judge Morrison C. England set a May 12, 2014 due date for the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to issue a new biological opinion, and told the federal government to not utilize the existing 2012 BiOp in the preparation of the new opinion or in any Federal Energy Regulatory Commission relicensing processes for the two dams.
Yuba County Water Agency, Nevada Irrigation District, Pacific Gas & Electric and other plaintiffs challenged the 2012 BiOp, which identified dam removal and other fish passage improvements as the preferred approaches to improve conditions for spring run Chinook salmon, steelhead and green sturgeon.

 

The local water agencies argued that fish passage improvements or dam removal would negatively impact water deliveries and hydropower generation, and imperil the award-winning Lower Yuba River Accord, a regional agreement benefitting agriculture and fisheries. Furthermore, the plaintiffs said the 2012 BiOp was flawed and violated key elements of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the Administrative Procedures Act.

 

England issued a stay of proceedings until the new biological opinion is done, and he denied a related lawsuit from a local environmental group seeking enforcement of the 2012 BiOp. He also ordered the Army Corps of Engineers, which maintains the two dams, to continue taking steps to improve fish habitat on the river.
2021-05-12T11:06:03-07:00August 17th, 2013|
Go to Top