{"id":1542,"date":"2017-03-06T21:10:38","date_gmt":"2017-03-07T05:10:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/?p=1542"},"modified":"2017-03-06T21:10:38","modified_gmt":"2017-03-07T05:10:38","slug":"science-perspectives-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/calsport.org\/fisheriesblog\/?p=1542","title":{"rendered":"Science Perspectives \u2013 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>The Bay-Delta Science Conference<\/a> held this past November focused on the topic of \u201cScience for Solutions: Linking Data and Decisions\u201d. There were a diversity of subjects and presentations on the topic. A special series of papers previewed the conference presentations in the San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science<\/a> (UC Davis). The conference presentations and journal articles were a lot to take in.<\/p>\n

My take on the conference and associated journal articles is that they represent a continuation of a decades-long attempt to avoid and direct focus away from the root cause of the Bay-Delta ecosystem\u2019s greatest problems: high Delta exports, low river flows to the Delta, and low Delta outflows to the Bay under past and present water management. Simply put, there was a lot of the \u201csame-old, same-old\u201d mix of perspectives (excuses), with some new and interesting science.<\/p>\n

A previous post <\/a>covered the conference paper on Delta smelt. Another <\/a>covered introductory presentations. In this post I focus on one presentation and paper entitled Perspectives on Bay-Delta Science and Policy<\/a>, a summary of the conference prepared by its sponsor\u2019s (the Delta Stewardship Council) Independent Science Board.<\/p>\n

PERSPECTIVES<\/p>\n

\u201cPerspectives\u201d focuses on seven themes the Independent Science Board has grown to accept as the causes of the Bay-Delta problems (Figure 1):<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Nutrients \u2013 Changes in and lack of nutrients are now considered important.<\/li>\n
  2. Contaminants \u2013 Delta waters are now considered contaminated.<\/li>\n
  3. Food Webs \u2013 Much less able to support fish than in the past.<\/li>\n
  4. Multiple Stressors \u2013 Multiple stressors work together to cause the decline in Delta native fishes.<\/li>\n
  5. Storms and Droughts Extremes \u2013 Extremes in drought and floods wreck havoc on water management.<\/li>\n
  6. Landscape Ecology \u2013 Restoration has not been pursued on a landscape scale.<\/li>\n
  7. Dire Straits of Endangered Species \u2013 Regime shifts and climate change have contributed to accelerated spiraling declines in native fishes.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Even if the underlying science on the subjects (factors) is valid, the arguments that relate these factors to the Bay-Delta ecosystem decline are not. At most, these factors are secondary actors in the overall process driven primarily by water management, Central Valley and Bay-Delta water quality standards, and endangered fish \u201cprotections in biological opinions.<\/p>\n

    The focus on these perspectives represents an overall intent to misinform and misdirect science and management away from real causes and effects, and from effective solutions to the Delta\u2019s problems. Some topic examples:<\/p>\n