I have a hard time respecting environmentalists, but it's not because I want to pave the earth. I love clean air and water, fishies, owls, and all that sort of thing. What I don't love is environmental-mysticism masquerading as science. The Bay Institute, a Marin Country-based organization "Dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the San Francisco Bay Watershed, from the Sierra to the Sea" has recently "graded" the San Francisco Bay on various ecological criteria and found it wanting -- a result surprising to no-one, I suspect.
The San Francisco Bay is getting an ecological report card today -- and it doesn't look good. But there's hope behind the C's, D's and an F, according to the nonprofit environmental group that graded the bay's health. ...Ah, yes... why do I get the feeling that the Bay Institute itself determined these "restoration targets" based on their own agenda, and that these targets were in fact the driving force behind many of the bad grades? The Bay Institute itself admits that the bay is doing well in some areas:The bay's grades -- one B, three C's, three D's and an F -- were based on historical conditions, environmental and public health standards, and restoration targets, according to the institute.
"The destruction of San Francisco Bay's unique environment has in some cases been halted or even slightly reversed," said Grant Davis, Bay Institute executive director. ...Why is that? Because otherwise their "restoration targets" cannot be reached!"Fish and wildlife populations that were crashing now appear to be stable. Many people are working to protect and restore habitat, improve water quality and use resources more efficiently. But progress is slow and needs to be accelerated," Davis said.
So what's causing the problems? People want to use the fresh water that historically flowed into the bay for other purposes, like growing food.
Tina Swanson, fish biologist and member of the science team working with the Bay Institute, said decades of diversions of Sacramento and San Joaquin river hwater to growers and cities have taken a heavy toll on native aquatic species in the bay.And so, some species of fish are becoming rare in the bay -- or are disappearing altogether -- because we humans need to use fresh water to grow food. Well, there's not much that can be done about that, is there? Water isn't free, and growers try to keep costs down by not using more than they need to. Water management in California is taken very seriously, and is a complex issue that I don't claim to understand perfectly, but I don't think that a great deal of water is being wasted.Historically, during rain and snowmelt, the fresh river waters have flowed into the bay and out the Golden Gate. The rush of the rivers creates a special mixing zone where the freshwater hits the salty ocean water, providing an important nursery for many estuary species, scientists say.
"The bay suffers from a permanent drought because so much water is diverted from its watershed," said Swanson. The species are not recovering from the steep decline they experienced over the last several decades, she said.
So what does the Bay Institute hope to accomplish with this report card? I don't know, because they don't say; all I can infer is that they don't want us to grow so much food, and that they don't think there should be so many darn humans all over the place.
Water rights in California have been seriously broken for a long, long time. Water for farms is basically free compared to what you or I pay for it in the city. Last I studied this issue (admittedly, 4 years ago), there was no such thing as water conservation anywhere but in the cities, and even during drought conditions farmers were mostly unaffected. California has a dual-system water rights setup, recognizing both Riparian and Appropriative rights, but farmers mostly fall under Riparian rights systems. So long as they fall into "reasonable use", and their property abuts a "natural" watercourse, they can use all the water they want. Regardless of how they get it, farmers are not paying anywhere near normal rates on average for water.
There have been some well-documented environmental disasters based on the water needs of farms in california. The movie chinatown, while not accurate, is based on actual historical events - when Mulholland and others were bringing water to Los Angeles from the sierra nevadas, eventually completely destroying the owens river valley to bring water to Los Angeles and San Fernando. Admittedly, this water was needed in light of the falling water levels of the LA river, but the low levels themselves were due in part to the use of Riparian water rights.
Anyway, as usual I have no point, except maybe that people do cause environmental problems, and a lot of them could very well be prevented with the correct legislation, without putting an undue burden on anyone. I see no point in attacking people who are trying to make changes for the better. Pollution and environmental destruction, in many cases, is completely out of hand, and most companies still have no where near the economic responsibility for it that they should.
Sure, my point isn't so much about the environmental details, but about the Bay Institute's scorecard.
I understand, but you say:
"And so, some species of fish are becoming rare in the bay -- or are disappearing altogether -- because we humans need to use fresh water to grow food. Well, there's not much that can be done about that, is there? Water isn't free, and growers try to keep costs down by not using more than they need to. Water management in California is taken very seriously, and is a complex issue that I don't claim to understand perfectly, but I don't think that a great deal of water is being wasted."
I just disagree. A ton of water gets wasted. We grow way too much food (as the article I pointed too in a post this week talks about). There is a ton that can be done about it. Also, just assuming that they picked restoration targets at super high levels isn't particularly fair...why not look at what these levels are? Statements like they don't think there should be so many darn humans all over the place are completely unfair as well - maybe actually looking at the problem and seeing if there is a way to rectify it if it exists would be better than just dismissing it completely, even going so far as to "infer" ideas you know will be taken as ridiculous (less food) or impossible (less people). An actual solution might be use less water, and grow less food is probably reasonable. Using less water would be easily achived by changing the water rights rules, though making it "fair" is a tough task of course. Maybe we could lose the farm subsidies while we're at it. No, obviously not - the only possible solution must be to get rid of the humans, and that must be what they'd propose.
My assumption that a lot of water wasn't being wasted may have been wrong, but water doesn't just diappear. If it's not in the river, it's being diverted somewhere else.
It seems more likely that, as you wrote, we're growing too much food due to subsidies.
In either event, I'm certainly not qualified to evaluate their grading criteria in detail. I read the quotes they gave the newspaper, and by their own admission it sounds like things are going fairily well. To me, that means that their grading system isn't very realistic.
All they said was that populations are no longer crashing, and that "many people are working to protect and restore habitat, improve water quality and use resources more efficiently". Where do you get "going fairly well" from that? I don't get it. Other than the no longer crashing (just real low), none of that implies anything other than people trying to fix the low grades. They even follow with "Progress is slow", which you mock as needing to be faster on because of their "restoration targets" which you assumed to be unrealistic at best or ridiculous, probably detrimental to society environmentalist mumbo-jumbo at worst.
Anyway, like I said, they admitted nothing about anything that implies "going fairly well", unless you assume trying is automatically the same as succeding.