Opinion
Tom Philp
The new firestorm of falsehood
The same western weather pattern that caused the ferocious winds in Southern California also blew through the Delta. Clear waters turned brown. Plumes of muddy water began migrating toward the water projects. A potential pumping conflict was afoot.
Sticking to its plan, the state and federal projects began slightly slowing the pumping. Little supply was reduced in recent days. The water operations of the Newsom/Biden era have produced more water supply since mid-December than if it had been operating under Trump’s old management plan.
Yet Republicans are acting outraged.
“The actions being taken right now by state and federal agencies to reduce water supplies is the starkest example of the mismanagement of California’s water supply that affects every Californian,” said Republican Vince Fong of Bakersfield.
“The future of our farms, families and communities is at stake,” said Republican Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo of Tulare.
I fear that the new goal is to never slow Delta water pumping for the smelt. Once this endangered fish is gone, it will be onto the next fish on the brink with the same cries of mismanagement. This is how a system of laws, science and environmental protection begins to unravel. It all could begin in earnest as soon as Monday.
Tom Philp
THE SACRAMENTO BEE
Sun, January 19, 2025
Firefighters attempt to extinguish a fire in a home along the Pacific Coast Highway in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood on Jan. 8, 2025. The Southern California fires have ignired a political storm over state water management.
Donald Trump’s second presidency will restart a fight with California over water, and the first battles have already begun. We will no longer fight over what our best science is telling us. We are beginning to avoid science altogether, one endangered fish at a time.
Consider that the administrations of Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom have done better than Trump in his first presidency at producing more water out of our two big projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in certain circumstances. Yet more water for San Joaquin Valley Republicans is no longer enough. Suddenly more water is a sign of “mismanagement.”
This feels different. This feels dangerous.
Californians thirst for water just as they long to maintain the beauty and the native life in our remarkable Sierra rivers and the Delta, fish large and small. Environmental protection has never been about choosing which native inhabitants of this state deserve protection or death. But Trump loves to deride a small native fish, the Delta smelt, whose migration patterns can force the slowdown of pumps that provide water to farms and cities.
These first battles suggest that some California wildlife should be expendable. But where does it end? And how can planned extermination ever be okay in some future approach to water management when under both state and federal environmental law, it’s illegal?
Opinion
The recent catastrophic fires around Los Angeles have tragically ignited a partisan, political storm over movements from Northern California water southward, never mind that Southern California now has more water in reserve than at any time in history.
Trump, who takes office Monday, could launch a federal reboot of California water rules at any time. Any move, such as declaring the Delta smelt as extinct or removing it from environmental protection, would not happen overnight. The bottom line is that the more that Washington’s and Sacramento’s approach to water begins to differ, the greater the chaos will result throughout a statewide, interconnected water system. Trump and Newsom are on a path to water’s version of a civil war.
Delta smelt loom as Target One
This small fish that smells like a cucumber may not be the most important in the food chain, so it has become the easiest political target to eliminate. A far bigger water threat to farms and cities alike is climate change, and how rising temperatures are predicted to dramatically reduce our surface and groundwater supplies. Trump is trying to turn the attention to a very modest amount of water supply that is not pumped from the Delta in order to help save this one fish.
The science on how to protect smelt and provide water supply is so much better than it once was, which makes this looming political fight over its future so meaningless and destructive.
In the past 15 years, researchers have taught us precisely when to worry about smelt swimming toward the southern Delta pumps of the federal Central Valley Project and State Water Project. It’s when the clear summer waters of the estuary get murky from winter storms or wind. Smelt wait for these turbid conditions to migrate to their winter spawning grounds. Ever since this discovery, the goal has been to prevent plumes of turbid water containing smelt from getting near the pumps in the first place.
How Newsom came up with more water supply than Trump
In his first term as president, Trump repeatedly stated he would provide more water to California farmers and directed his regulators to deliver. But his regulators did not ignore this science about the smelt and murky water. Instead, Trump’s 2019 regulators came up with new winter pumping restrictions to slow the pumping during these moments of conflict.
Critical of Trump’s Delta water regulations, Biden would rewrite these rules, known as biological opinions. The Newsom administration would update its rules as well to enforce the California Endangered Species Act.
And then something defying conventional political wisdom happened. Biden’s and Newsom’s teams would fine-tune regulations to produce more water supply when things get downright murky in the Delta. This was not political. Rather, new science helped regulators get smarter at pinpointing precisely when to slow down the pumping, and for how long.
Sun, January 19, 2025
Firefighters attempt to extinguish a fire in a home along the Pacific Coast Highway in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood on Jan. 8, 2025. The Southern California fires have ignired a political storm over state water management.
Donald Trump’s second presidency will restart a fight with California over water, and the first battles have already begun. We will no longer fight over what our best science is telling us. We are beginning to avoid science altogether, one endangered fish at a time.
Consider that the administrations of Joe Biden and Gavin Newsom have done better than Trump in his first presidency at producing more water out of our two big projects in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in certain circumstances. Yet more water for San Joaquin Valley Republicans is no longer enough. Suddenly more water is a sign of “mismanagement.”
This feels different. This feels dangerous.
Californians thirst for water just as they long to maintain the beauty and the native life in our remarkable Sierra rivers and the Delta, fish large and small. Environmental protection has never been about choosing which native inhabitants of this state deserve protection or death. But Trump loves to deride a small native fish, the Delta smelt, whose migration patterns can force the slowdown of pumps that provide water to farms and cities.
These first battles suggest that some California wildlife should be expendable. But where does it end? And how can planned extermination ever be okay in some future approach to water management when under both state and federal environmental law, it’s illegal?
Opinion
The recent catastrophic fires around Los Angeles have tragically ignited a partisan, political storm over movements from Northern California water southward, never mind that Southern California now has more water in reserve than at any time in history.
Trump, who takes office Monday, could launch a federal reboot of California water rules at any time. Any move, such as declaring the Delta smelt as extinct or removing it from environmental protection, would not happen overnight. The bottom line is that the more that Washington’s and Sacramento’s approach to water begins to differ, the greater the chaos will result throughout a statewide, interconnected water system. Trump and Newsom are on a path to water’s version of a civil war.
Delta smelt loom as Target One
This small fish that smells like a cucumber may not be the most important in the food chain, so it has become the easiest political target to eliminate. A far bigger water threat to farms and cities alike is climate change, and how rising temperatures are predicted to dramatically reduce our surface and groundwater supplies. Trump is trying to turn the attention to a very modest amount of water supply that is not pumped from the Delta in order to help save this one fish.
The science on how to protect smelt and provide water supply is so much better than it once was, which makes this looming political fight over its future so meaningless and destructive.
In the past 15 years, researchers have taught us precisely when to worry about smelt swimming toward the southern Delta pumps of the federal Central Valley Project and State Water Project. It’s when the clear summer waters of the estuary get murky from winter storms or wind. Smelt wait for these turbid conditions to migrate to their winter spawning grounds. Ever since this discovery, the goal has been to prevent plumes of turbid water containing smelt from getting near the pumps in the first place.
How Newsom came up with more water supply than Trump
In his first term as president, Trump repeatedly stated he would provide more water to California farmers and directed his regulators to deliver. But his regulators did not ignore this science about the smelt and murky water. Instead, Trump’s 2019 regulators came up with new winter pumping restrictions to slow the pumping during these moments of conflict.
Critical of Trump’s Delta water regulations, Biden would rewrite these rules, known as biological opinions. The Newsom administration would update its rules as well to enforce the California Endangered Species Act.
And then something defying conventional political wisdom happened. Biden’s and Newsom’s teams would fine-tune regulations to produce more water supply when things get downright murky in the Delta. This was not political. Rather, new science helped regulators get smarter at pinpointing precisely when to slow down the pumping, and for how long.
The new firestorm of falsehood
The same western weather pattern that caused the ferocious winds in Southern California also blew through the Delta. Clear waters turned brown. Plumes of muddy water began migrating toward the water projects. A potential pumping conflict was afoot.
Sticking to its plan, the state and federal projects began slightly slowing the pumping. Little supply was reduced in recent days. The water operations of the Newsom/Biden era have produced more water supply since mid-December than if it had been operating under Trump’s old management plan.
Yet Republicans are acting outraged.
“The actions being taken right now by state and federal agencies to reduce water supplies is the starkest example of the mismanagement of California’s water supply that affects every Californian,” said Republican Vince Fong of Bakersfield.
“The future of our farms, families and communities is at stake,” said Republican Assemblywoman Alexandra Macedo of Tulare.
I fear that the new goal is to never slow Delta water pumping for the smelt. Once this endangered fish is gone, it will be onto the next fish on the brink with the same cries of mismanagement. This is how a system of laws, science and environmental protection begins to unravel. It all could begin in earnest as soon as Monday.
'Spare No Expense,' Says Biden, But Who's Really Footing The Bill, As The Los Angeles Wildfire Damage Surpasses $250 Billion
Adrian Volenik
Sun, January 19, 2025
A Long Road to Recovery
The sheer scale of the damage has made the Los Angeles wildfires one of the costliest disasters in U.S. history, surpassing even the record-breaking wildfire seasons of recent years.
President Biden has promised that the federal government will cover all the fire response costs and give affected families a $770 one-time check. Still, rebuilding will take years and more money and planning will be needed. Local leaders are asking Congress for extra funding, but it's unclear when that will happen.
Image from Shutterstock
Benzinga
Adrian Volenik
Sun, January 19, 2025
The Los Angeles wildfires have caused widespread destruction, with over 40,000 acres burned, 12,300 structures destroyed and thousands displaced. According to estimates from AccuWeather, the financial impact is between $250 billion and $275 billion and counting.
President Joe Biden recently declared, "I told the governor and local officials, spare no expense," pledging federal support for the disaster response. With FEMA and other organizations providing emergency assistance, this destruction still begs the crucial question: Who is paying for it?
Governments, Insurers and Residents Share the Costs
As Business Insider reports, the federal government covers immediate response efforts, including fire containment and emergency shelters. FEMA offers displaced families hazard mitigation and financial aid, but these programs aren't designed to fully rebuild homes or businesses. For that, private insurers and residents are largely on their own.
However, insurance coverage is becoming a significant hurdle. Companies like Allstate, State Farm and Farmers have recently stopped covering in high-risk areas, citing rising disaster risks. Many residents are left relying on California's FAIR plan, the state's last-resort insurance program. This often results in higher premiums and less comprehensive coverage, leaving homeowners with steep out-of-pocket costs.
For uninsured residents, rebuilding isn't just challenging – it's financially crippling. And while state and local governments offer some support, long-term recovery largely depends on personal finances and private contributions.
It's not just the direct costs of rebuilding homes and infrastructure that add up. Indirect losses, like health care expenses, lost wages and business disruptions, compound the financial blow. The destruction of neighborhoods with high property values, such as Malibu, Santa Monica and the Pacific Palisades, further increases the economic toll.
The price of materials and labor is also expected to soar. Demand for contractors, plumbers, electricians and other specialists will outstrip supply, pushing costs higher. Furthermore, building supplies like steel and lumber may increase due to inflation and possible price gouging.
President Joe Biden recently declared, "I told the governor and local officials, spare no expense," pledging federal support for the disaster response. With FEMA and other organizations providing emergency assistance, this destruction still begs the crucial question: Who is paying for it?
Governments, Insurers and Residents Share the Costs
As Business Insider reports, the federal government covers immediate response efforts, including fire containment and emergency shelters. FEMA offers displaced families hazard mitigation and financial aid, but these programs aren't designed to fully rebuild homes or businesses. For that, private insurers and residents are largely on their own.
However, insurance coverage is becoming a significant hurdle. Companies like Allstate, State Farm and Farmers have recently stopped covering in high-risk areas, citing rising disaster risks. Many residents are left relying on California's FAIR plan, the state's last-resort insurance program. This often results in higher premiums and less comprehensive coverage, leaving homeowners with steep out-of-pocket costs.
For uninsured residents, rebuilding isn't just challenging – it's financially crippling. And while state and local governments offer some support, long-term recovery largely depends on personal finances and private contributions.
It's not just the direct costs of rebuilding homes and infrastructure that add up. Indirect losses, like health care expenses, lost wages and business disruptions, compound the financial blow. The destruction of neighborhoods with high property values, such as Malibu, Santa Monica and the Pacific Palisades, further increases the economic toll.
The price of materials and labor is also expected to soar. Demand for contractors, plumbers, electricians and other specialists will outstrip supply, pushing costs higher. Furthermore, building supplies like steel and lumber may increase due to inflation and possible price gouging.
A Long Road to Recovery
The sheer scale of the damage has made the Los Angeles wildfires one of the costliest disasters in U.S. history, surpassing even the record-breaking wildfire seasons of recent years.
President Biden has promised that the federal government will cover all the fire response costs and give affected families a $770 one-time check. Still, rebuilding will take years and more money and planning will be needed. Local leaders are asking Congress for extra funding, but it's unclear when that will happen.
Image from Shutterstock
Benzinga
No comments:
Post a Comment