SWP Predicts Future Deliveries Greater Than During the 1980's and 1990's
Posted October 7, 2010 in Living Sustainably, Saving Wildlife and Wild Places
Yesterday, I wrote about the new State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report’s conclusion that ESA protections increase dry year State Water Project deliveries. The report contains more surprising news, like this table on page 43:
This table shows that, as a result of new scientifically-based fisheries protections, average SWP deliveries will decline by just three percent overall. That’s right – three percent. Even more interesting, it projects average SWP deliveries of more than 2.4 million acre-feet. That’s greater than average SWP deliveries in the 1980s or in the 1990s. It is true that these new rules will not allow the environmentally-damaging record diversions seen in the past decade. But the deliveries projected by this report are a far cry from the disastrous claims heard so frequently in the media.
The DWR report, along with the new UOP/UC Davis analysis of job losses represent a double whammy of new analysis that contradicts the hyperbolic claims heard for the past few years. Here’s a quick summary of the key findings:
- The University of the Pacific found that there were more fishing jobs lost as a result of a collapsing salmon fishery, than farmworker jobs as the result of protections for the collapsing Bay-Delta.
- With ESA protections in place, dry year SWP water supplies will increase.
- On average, with these protections in place, the SWP can deliver more water than it did during the 1980s and 1990s.
I don’t suggest for a moment that the status quo in the Delta is acceptable. It’s not. Farmers and urban water users south of the Delta agree with fishermen and environmentalists that we need new solutions. But the first step to solving a problem is understanding the problem. These two reports go a long way toward dispelling the misinformation we have heard over the past few years about Delta ESA protection.
These new reports show that credible, scientific analysis can narrow the differences among stakeholder groups, let the steam out of super-charged water policy discussions, and set the stage for productive solutions. They also confirm that restoring the Delta and California’s salmon fishery are compatible with a reliable water supply. That’s good news.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Mike — Oct 8 2010 12:59 PM
Science is at the forefront of developing a resolution to Delta environmental problems and achieving a reliable water supply for 25 million Californians. The current process within the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program (DHCCP ) reflects the science that water users are calling for. The recent UOP/UC Davis report substantiates claims that farmers and their employees along the San Joaquin Valley westside suffered severe impacts from reduced water deliveries. But using the SWP Delivery Reliability Report to diminish these impacts is a gross oversimplification. Also, UOP numbers on job losses points out that salmon industry officials overestimated their job losses, which added to the "supercharged water policy discussions" Nelson describes.
Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition
Chris Gulick — Oct 8 2010 01:40 PM
The federal Court in Fresno concluded that, “the economic pain and hardship has been no less to the fishing industry that relies on salmon than has been the economic consequence to the Central Valley agricultural community.”.
Mr. Wade, do I understand that you would have us make a choice between these two groups of unemployed?
This "choice" has little to do with jobs and far more to do with corporate profits.
This is a straight up redistribution of wealth, plain and simple.
Terry Erlewine — Oct 8 2010 01:41 PM
Here we go again. Another case of creative reading. That 2007 DWR report already INCLUDED some of the most serious cutbacks to water supply that stemmed from interim measures imposed by the federal district court in Fresno. So things have gotten marginally worse since 2007, and taken all together, the cutbacks can be as high as 30 percent compared to life prior to those interim measures. Beware of taking two snapshots in time to depict the real picture. As to whether the new restrictions are scientifically justified, the court in a recent ruling on salmon restrictions has called some measures “guestimates,” adding that the National Marine Fisheries Service has “failed to justify by generally recognized scientific principals the precise flow prescriptions…”