By Scott Hamilton, President, Hamilton Resource Economics
Last month, a front-page story on Valley Ag Voice drew attention to the lack of common sense when managing Central Valley water supplies flowing into the Delta. That article concluded with the following paragraph: “Reasonable efforts should be made to recover endangered species. Those efforts should be informed by the best available scientific information. There is a plethora of good science to inform the recovery of delta smelt. It is, however, being ignored while ineffective, costly actions continue to be stubbornly implemented.”
Coincidentally, two letters were sent to state and federal resource managers — one from a group of public water agencies and the other from the Water Blueprint and cosigned by the Southern California Water Committee. The two letters were similar in their intent — they requested suspension of an action, referred to as “Fall X2” that is intended to benefit delta smelt by increasing the amount of water flowing through the Delta and out to the ocean in wetter than normal years.
The action had been controversial since its inception in the 2008 Biological Opinion governing the operation of water project operations in the Delta. Public water agencies that reviewed the proposed action understood that the science on which it was based was flawed. Water agencies sued and in 2010 the case was heard before Judge Oliver Wanger who took up the challenging task of understanding the science behind the Biological Opinion.
While Judge Wanger decided in favor of the water agencies on several issues, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Wanger, deciding that deference on science issues should be given to the regulatory agencies. In the case of Fall X2, that decision is relevant because the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — the federal agency responsible for protecting delta smelt —determined the Fall X2 action would not improve the survival of delta smelt. That determination was based on the Service’s modeling, but since 2010, other scientific work has either repeated initial statistical errors or found no benefit for delta smelt from the Fall X2 Action.
California’s Secretary of Natural Resources, Wade Crowfoot, was the keynote speaker at a California Water Institute Summit at Fresno State University, on September 4, 2024. Crowfoot spoke of the challenges facing water management in California: extremes that are getting more extreme (floods and droughts are becoming more intense), bringing groundwater into balance, providing safe drinking water, modernizing infrastructure, and moving away from management driven by conflict in favor of proactive initiatives.
The first question he received following his presentation related to Fall X2. The Secretary provided a competent summary of the action, its intent, the water shortages users are currently facing, and was knowledgeable of the concerns raised in the two letters. Significantly, even though he had both letters for only a short period, he reported that state administration had decided to review the implementation of the action and was considering a process to potentially modify it. That process has since been implemented and involves a one-week public comment period to ensure a transparent, open, and defensible process.
At the time of submission of this article, no final decision has been made regarding the implementation of Fall X in 2024. But the speed with which the Newsom administration has responded to water management issues based on the best available science is commendable. This is at least the third time in the last 18 months the Governor has stepped in to ensure wise water management in California — the first being his executive order during the floods of 2023 to make it easier to increase groundwater recharge and reduce flood impacts.
Water issues in California are nearly always controversial. Most state administrations have avoided these complex issues, deciding to study issues further rather than taking decisive action even when supported by science. To move as rapidly as this administration did is truly remarkable. Good water management requires good science, but it also requires leaders who are willing to act on that science. The Newsom administration has demonstrated that it is willing to do so.
