Over at John Fleck's shop in Albuquerque, the reporter looks at the release of a National Academy of Sciences report on the Delta. The unavoidable news is that the panel concluded that restrictions on pumping to save the endangered Delta Smelt were "scientifically justified," and said so numerous times in the report.
But to no one's surprise, the report's call for "clarification" and doubts about setting aside an 8000-acre area to improve the tiny fish's chance at survival were interpreted in numerous ways by numerous folk.
Just look at the headlines, compiled by Aquafornia:
- Scientists give mixed review of delta plans; Study says
it’s too early to see whether smelt have been helped, from the
Fresno Bee - Study backs efforts to save delta fish, from the San
Francisco Chronicle - Science’s ‘Supreme Court’ plunges into Delta dispute,
from the Stockton Record (Log in or free registration required.) - Scientists’ report only intensifies delta debate,
from the Los Angeles Times - California: Review Backs Water Limits, from the New
York Times - Report backs reduced water for ag; Fiorini appointed to
Delta Stewardship Council, from the Turlock Journal - New report: Water limit to Westside farms justified,
from the Hanford Sentinel - California Bay-Delta Water for Fish ‘Scientifically
Justified’, from the Environment News Service
Two things strike me about the $%750,000 report, which was ordered by Senator Dianne Feinstein, apparently at the bequest of pistachio farmer Stewart Resnick.
First, the scientists complain repeatedly about the inability to make final judgments given the extremely short time frame they had to study the issue (two months).
They have another year to write a full report, which no doubt will be more thoughtful and more detailed, and probably less read.
Second, to their credit, the NAS makes the report easy to access…
Kit Stolz 
Life is a leaf of paper white, thereon each of us may write his Word or two.
LikeLike