559-286-7795
facebook twitter you tube
 

Newsletter

 

Who Are These Scientists and What Is Their Agenda?

We're all starting to see that politics might be more important to some scientists than science

Sep 14, 2011

 

Families Protecting The Valley Newsletter Tell Your Friends about Families Protecting The Valley
VOLUME 3 ISSUE 55

SEPTEMBER 13 2011

:: IN THIS ISSUE
» Water Wars
» Feinstein
Donate to Families Protected the Valley
Visit Our Web Site

Visit Our Web Site

Board of Directors

Denis Prosperi
Chester Andrew
Bob Smittcamp
Russ Waymire
John "Dusty" Giacone
Joe Marchini
Mark Watte
Kole Upton
Piedad Ayala
Tom Barcellos
Jim Walls

 
Who Are These Scientists and What Is Their Agenda?

We're starting to wonder if scientists are beginning to worry about their credibility.  People (and judges) aren't just taking their word for it any more.  We're all starting to see that politics might be more important to some scientists than science.  The three articles below are just the three most recent examples, although there are many others.  Look at some of the comments in these articles:  

  From "Is New Melones Lake in Danger?  "Their decision was poor and based on faulty science."  dThTheri:  

 From Senator Feinstein:  "It is increasingly clear to me that key biological opinions done by the Department of the Interior are not based on sound science."

From Investor's Business Daily:  Local conservationists, like the Santa Ana Sucker Fish Task Force, call this flat-footed federal effort to horn in on their work "sloppy science"

It will be a sad day when we have to vote on science because no one has any faith in it.  Maybe that day has already come.


TFrom    FFrom kajajotjowejojaWONJwergo

Is New Melones Lake in Danger?

ABCNews10

Tim Daly


STOCKTON, CA
- Two valley irrigation districts are contending through a billboard ad campaign that New Melones Lake will go dry under new federal regulations.


Oakdale and South San Joaquin, claim so much water will be emptied from the lake into the Stanislaus River, to benefit fish, that the lake will literally be drained, once every few years.


"Statistically, that lake will be dry one in every five years," Oakdale Irrigation District Steve Knell said. "It's not a scare tactic, it's simple math." 


The billboard contains the wording "one bad decision, no water, no jobs, no tourism, no fun", implying economic damages to New Melones if water levels go low.


"Their decision was poor and based on faulty science," Knell said. "That's the point of what we're doing. We want them to reconsider their science."


The two districts are also suing the federal government, challenging the research that led to a biological opinion that could impact levels of New Melones Lake. 


Knell said he expects a judges decision any day.


By Tim Daly, tdaly@news10.net

 

Senator Feinstein: Interior department biological opinions ‘not based on sound science’

“Washington—Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) issued the following statement after the Department of the Interior’s announcement that it would seek a stay on Judge Oliver Wanger’s ruling on Fall X2 (Delta salinity line):


“It is increasingly clear to me that key biological opinions done by the Department of the Interior are not based on sound science.


“Judge Wanger found that the department’s proposal to release hundreds of thousands of acre feet of water in the hopes of identifying the ideal location for ocean water and fresh water to meet was not scientifically justified. In fact, the judge said ‘there is essentially no biological evidence to support’ the department’s plan.


“In addition, the ruling states that the Department of the Interior ‘completely abdicated [its] responsibility to consider reasonable alternatives to the Fall X2 action…’


“I strongly urge the department to heed the court’s message, develop a reasonable alternative that protects the smelt and water users and finally settle this matter.””


 

IBD: Sucker-ing California

 

Editorial, Investor’s Business Daily


Junk Science: Environmental debate is often framed as a conflict of progress vs. conservation. But in California, a federal environmental agency’s bid to halt local conservation efforts reveals the real objective: expanding power.


Twelve state and local water agencies in Southern California are suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over its arbitrary decision last July to double the size of the habitat for a small algae-eating fish known as the Santa Ana Sucker.


Wielding the all-purpose Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s no-explanation decision plants a Godzilla-sized footprint over local efforts to conserve the fish and its environment.


But worse, it will cut water supplies for up to 3 million citizens in Southern California’s Inland Empire region, raising water prices and straining water supplies elsewhere all in the name of “conservation.”


It’s nothing but a power grab that will leave a new round of economic and environmental wreckage.


This is why the lead players are, interestingly enough, water agencies in the small cities within San Bernardino and Riverside counties, which represent some of the still-economically vibrant parts of Southern California — the part that’s talked of seceding.


The water agencies have spent great amounts of planning and money to accommodate the economic growth of the water-scarce area by using recycled water treatment plants — which by the way, the sucker fish undoubtedly would thrive in because of all the new algae.


San Bernardino has a big one in the works called “The Clean Water Factory,” next to a wastewater treatment plant. It will recycle 25,000 acre-feet of water to supply 100,000 people. City officials there worry the project will be derailed as wastewater will be forced into the Santa Ana River for the new protected habitat.


Fish and Wildlife claims it’s all to save the sucker fish. But what it’s really doing by putting vast amounts of watery land off-limits is forcing the cities to buy more expensive water coming through the water-scarce Central Valley, an area that has been devastated by a separate application of the Endangered Species Act.


That failed environmental engineering experiment, by the way, sharply cut water deliveries to the Central Valley by as much as 90%, supposedly to save a baitfish known as the Delta smelt.


California’s prized vineyards withered, but the smelt never came back.


The Fish and Wildlife ruling is also a slap in the face to local conservation efforts — which in fact have been effective for the sucker fish.


Local conservationists, like the Santa Ana Sucker Fish Task Force, call this flat-footed federal effort to horn in on their work “sloppy science” and say it will interfere with their work.


They have a good case. The fish is rated as “vulnerable,” and not the more serious “endangered,” on the International for Conservation of Nature scale. According to IUCN, that means it merits careful watching, something local groups are well-suited to do.


But that’s not all this arbitrary decision will do.


The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers warns that the Fish and Wildlife habitat expansion will also interfere with the operation of its Seven Oaks Dam as a flood control facility. That sets the stage for some interesting blame-evasion games when a major flood comes.


And what again is this move by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency supposed to accomplish?


The agencies suing say recent judicial rulings require federal agencies to evaluate and minimize the disruption to human inhabitants before making sweeping Endangered Species Act rulings. Fish and Wildlife has blithely ignored that in this move.


They’re also required to analyze and evaluate whether the actions they propose will result in actual benefits to the species in question.


They’ve done none of that and now have 12 water agencies and a lot of angry local environmentalists after them. What do they think they’ll accomplish with this junk-science bid to strip Southern California of its water? The answer seems to be: more power for them.


If this isn’t a case for dismantling this behemoth that exists solely for its own sake, what is?


For more the on environmentalist power grab, check out Steve Milloy’s book “Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them” (Regnery 2009).



If you enjoy our newsletter please send it to friends.  If someone sent this to you and you'd like your own free subscription, sign up here.  If you'd like to respond just click 'reply' or send to john@familiesprotectingthevalley.com


 

 

Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.

helpdonate
helpdonate