Steady flow of conflicting views marks Delta debate in Davis

1. a. What is the source of the story/information? That is, where you read about it: media source + date published + headline title
“Steady flow of conflicting views marks Delta debate in Davis”
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010 from the Sacramento Bee

b. Who is telling the story?
(is it a journalist for that media source? Is it a public service announcement? Is it a story/propaganda from one of the stakeholders?)
By Matt Weiser journalist for the Sacramento Bee

2. What appears to be the issue(s)?
People disagree on much water can be diverted from the Delta and still maintain Delta smelt and two species of salmon in the Delta at a capacity so that they can reproduce at their natural rate.

3. What appears to be the cause(s) of the conflict?
Many people don’t like the current water rules and so a 15-member panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences must analyze federal rules protecting imperiled fish, including Delta smelt and two species of salmon. The environment of the public meetings is hostile because everyone has different interests and it is very hard or impossible to fully satisfy everyone’s interest in this problem; so the panel probably has to determine the interests that are the most important and start satisfying those first. Everyone is fighting to be the most important or to make the parties that are the most important right now less important.

4. a. Who all is involved in the conflict (stakeholders/parties)? Why are they involved? (this may touch on #4c)
• federal science panel
To determine whether the federal rules are adequate or inadequate
If they are inadequate how should they be changed?
Why are they involved? They have been appointed to do this
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California
They don't like current rules because they focus largely on reducing Delta water diversions.
Why are they involved? They people in their districts want the same amount of water or more water and if they don’t get it from the Delta they will have to figure out somewhere else to get it from that will probably be more costly.
• Other water agencies
They want less fall freshwater flows to the ocean.
This would increase Delta Water exports.
Why are they involved? They people in their districts want the same amount of water or more water and if they don’t get it from the Delta they will have to figure out somewhere else to get it from that will probably be more costly.
• fisheries biologist
Diversions should be avoided because they are the primary threat to the survival of the fish.
Water diversions can cause problems for water agencies that the water agencies classify as “stressors" , including invasive species and poor water quality.
Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct. They probably either like to fish, eat fish or do both too.

• other scientists
They support the view of the fisheries biologists
The decline in Delta fish began in about 2001. Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct. Scientists fear it marks a collapse of the whole ecosystem that may ultimately affect human health.
• Wildlife agencies
They ordered fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
This has the side effect of reducing Delta water exports.
Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct.
• Farmers
Why are they involved? If they don’t get water from the Delta they will probably have to get it in another way that will be more money or too expensive.
b.What does each “side” want? (how each side wants the conflict resolved--their position).

• federal science panel
Want to make their two reports
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California and other water agencies
They want rules to be changed to have less fall freshwater flows to the ocean.
This would increase Delta Water exports
• fisheries biologist
They want the federal science panel to realize that fish protections reduced water exports from the Delta about 10 percent last year, according to state and federal water officials. The drought caused cuts twice as large.
They don’t want the current laws about how much water the fish receive to be changed.
The amount of water we expect to export from the system has to be reduced.

• other scientists
They want to reduce the amount of water we export from the system.
They don’t want the current laws to be changed.
• Wildlife agencies
They want fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
• Farmers
They only want the water they don’t need for the crops to be used for creating the fish habitat.


c.What are each “side’s” underlying concerns or needs (their interests)--if it is not stated, then give your best guess.

• federal science panel
They want to do their job successfully and want to receive approval from the people that pay them.
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California and other water agencies
They want to get the amount of water that they need for their agencies in the cheapest way possible.
To receive approval from the people that use the water provided by their agency.
• fisheries biologist
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.
• other scientists
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.

• Wildlife agencies
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.
They want fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
• Farmers
They want to be able to keep their livelihood and their profession as farmers while making a decent amount of money and not changing the way they farm or what they farm. They want to not have to stop farming because they don’t have enough water.

5. a. How is the conflict being handled? (e.g. litigation, parties talking to each other, a vote….)
b. Where (at what stage) are they in that process?
a) The panel will decide (after hearing the testimonies at the public meetings) what the new law should be in two reports – one in March and a second 18 months later .
b)The federal science panel has held their third day of public meetings.
6. Why did you pick this conflict to write about? (Why does this particular conflict interest you?).
I want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species. I wish people would focus on how to make alternative uses of water more conventional and how to make people pay more for having really inefficient uses of like having lawns in the front and back yards of people in places where they barely get any rain all year like some places in Southern CA.