That's because
millions of Californians depend
upon the continued operation of
two large irrigation projects
for a reliable supply of water.
And the scientific reasons for
shutting them down to protect
the smelt are dubious at best.
The two water
operations in question, the
Central Valley Project and the
State Water Project, depend on
pumps located at the southern
end of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, to move water
flowing into the delta from
Northern California to water
users through Southern
California and the Central
Valley. Recent court decisions
have identified the operations'
pumps as a major cause of the
smelt's decline, and the Fish
and Wildlife Service's decision
will force a dramatic reduction
in pumping.
Obviously,
protecting the delta smelt and
other delta fish species is
important. But unfortunately,
the numerous farmers who will be
severely affected by the water
restrictions cannot take solace
in knowing that their pain will
be ameliorated by the delta
smelt's gain.
There is
little science to support the
notion that pumping restrictions
will solve the problem of the
smelt's decline.
Myriad factors
negatively affect the well-being
of the delta smelt. These
include, but are not limited to,
a low food supply, presence of
predatory fish and a toxic water
habitat for the smelt. The pumps
play a role through entrainment,
meaning that smelt can sometimes
get sucked into the pumps.
But the
significance of this and how it
affects the species is unknown.
No one knows how many smelt are
in the delta.
Moreover, no
study has shown a definitive
link between the pumps and smelt
viability. As a federal judge
overseeing litigation concerning
the delta smelt has noted, there
is no one cause for the smelt's
decline. And yet, as a 2008
CALFED report indicates, the
pumps are "blamed for many of
the delta's ills," despite their
being "no conclusive evidence
that export pumping has caused
population declines" of delta
fish species.
Environmentalists contend that
increased water pumping
restrictions are necessary "to
halt and reverse the trend
toward species extinction,
whatever the cost," in line with
a 1978 Supreme Court decision on
the Endangered Species Act. But
even that dubious principle
acknowledges that whatever is
done on behalf of a threatened
or endangered species should at
least reverse a species'
decline. In contrast, there is
nothing close to a guarantee
that increased pumping
restrictions will help the delta
smelt.
It would have
been a pleasant surprise if the
Fish and Wildlife Service had
taken the above into account
when it released its biological
opinion. Much is at stake, as
delta water deliveries help to
sustain the state agriculture
industry and play a key role in
the state's energy, tourism and
entertainment industries, not to
mention everyday human activity.
It makes no
sense to make the pumps the
scapegoat for the delta smelt's
decline, at the cost of
threatening the water supply for
millions of human beings.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. section 107,
any copyrighted
material herein is
distributed without profit
or payment to those who have
expressed a prior interest
in receiving this
information for non-profit
research and educational
purposes only. For more
information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml