![](images/ColorLogo2.GIF)
More
News
![horizontal rule](_themes/cspa-new/abstrrul.gif)
The "Water
Wars" debate ended without bloodshed but without any solutions
either
By Corey Cate, CSPA Executive Secretary
February 5, 2009 -- Fresno CA --The "water wars debate, held
February 4, at Fresno State, played to a full house, with the place
abuzz even before the beginning.
The principals all had the right credentials. The
"environmentalist's" panel consisted of Bill Jennings,
chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Michael
Jackson, board member and counsel to the California Sportfishing
Protection Alliance and former counsel to the Regional Council of Rural
Counties, and Lloyd Carter, board member of the California Water Impact
Network and Revive the San Joaquin and president of California Save Our
Streams Council.
The water agencies were represented by Thomas Birmingham, general
manager and general counsel of the Westlands Water District, Kole Upton,
former chairman of Friant Water Users Authority, and Jim Beck, general
manager of Kern County Water Agency.
Dr. Thomas Holyoke, a political science professor at Fresno State,
coordinated the event. It's Dr. Holyoke's belief that, ""The
single most important public policy problem confronting California's
Central Valley today is the availability of water. The declining
snowpack in the Sierra Nevada, the falling groundwater table and
decisions to restore Chinook salmon in the San Joaquin River and smelt
in the Delta will most likely mean considerably less water in the future
for Valley agriculture."
The "debate" was presided over by Federal Judge Oliver (Continued)...
Wanger, the presiding judge for the Eastern District of California,
Wanger has ruled over most of the major water cases recently in the
Valley, including the controversy over preserving Delta smelt in the
Sacramento Delta.
Judge Wanger was an excellent moderator, gave his two cents as a
citizen, commented on the judicial process, insights into the Endangered
Species Act and it's limitations (A federal judge can NOT factor
economic issues into adjudicating ESA), lamented the need for more
federal judges and generally set the civil tone for the 2.5 hours of
excellent, reasoned, real verbalization of the problems with water.
The debate table on the stage was set up for addressing the audience,
not cross-podium-encounter style.
Surprisingly, the tone of the debate was respectful, not angry nor
emotional, although some people probably expected a foodfight. There was
no foodfight although a few barbs were exchanged. While the debate
lasted over two hours, it seemed there was not enough time allotted in
the format to engage in a solid argument. Instead, a lot of historical
facts were verbalized, context given and statistics were cited and
excellently presented.. Overwhelmingly so. All participants had the
right oral skills.
The debate could not help but emphasize that the crunch on water
availability to farmers and users of the water projects is real, same
was true for the environmentalists. The urge to blame environmentalists
for the lack of water was evident on behalf of the water agencies. The
urge to blame farmers was equally evident on the part of the
environmentalists. However, both groups blamed the government for not
doing it's job well, in a timely manner or otherwise.
As a reporter, I was surrounded by people who want to feed the world.
The problem is they are having limits put upon them, which they do not
understand, nor do they want in general. The legislative process has
been singled out as the biggest issue. As readers of Cadillac Desert, we
know that to be the case. Legislators have not solved the Delta issues,
for a legion of reasons.
The environmentalist were equally disturbed about a delta whose fish
populations are crashing, whose water quality is deteriorating and whose
very existence is threatened by the excessive pumping taking place and
the possibility that even greater amounts of water may be sought in the
future. They are exasperated by a state policy that seems to say,
agriculture of any kind and at any price, even the price of destroying
the greatest estuarine environment on the entire west coast of either
North or South America, including all of its historic salmon runs, other
fisheries, farming and recreational uses.
Blame was not a big topic between the parties on the stage. Argument
over policy was more the case. I have copious notes on the interchange,
and the facts as stated, but I thought it best to give you a sense of
the debate rather than specifics. However, here are a few: