Wild salmon or subsidized cotton and rice? Choose wisely.

Our Northern California February rain will continue for at least another week, the state government finally passed a budget, and the winter steelhead and salmon runs are underway. The common thread to these stories, is the future of the salmon fishery in California hangs in the balance.

DWSUWF has posted stories before about the plight of our state salmonids. Last year, the California salmon fishery was closed for the first time in history, a "canary in the coal mine" indicator if there ever was one. In the fall, a comprehensive California Trout sponsored study documented as many as 20 species of California trout, steelhead, and salmon with a poor prognosis for survival. Time for an update.

Last week the Chronicle reported more bad news:

"A record-low number of chinook salmon returned to rivers in California's Central Valley last year, indicating that severe restrictions on salmon fishing are likely again this year, federal regulators said.The Pacific Fishery Management Council reported this week that 66,264 natural and hatchery chinook or "king" salmon adults were estimated to have returned to the Sacramento River basin in 2008 to spawn, the lowest estimate on record."

Chron Outdoors writer Tom Steinstra nets it out:

"The story this past week that reported the lowest number of salmon in history to swim from the ocean, through the bay and to the Sacramento River has several shocking sub plots. It's now likely that all salmon fishing will be shut down again this year off the Bay Area coast. Killer whales, or orcas, could face a population crash because their primary diet is salmon and they could have difficulty finding other food. Now get this, from the fine print inside a report by the National Marine Fisheries Service: Of the salmon that spawn or are released from hatcheries in the Sacramento River downstream of Redding, only 20 percent make it to the Delta because of water projects. Of that 20 percent that make it to the Delta, 60 percent die because of more water projects. So for the juvenile salmon that start their journey in Northern California, only 8 percent make it to the Bay to head out to the ocean. The best suggestion is tell L.A. and other water grabbers to shut off their California Aqueduct faucet and build several desalination plants."

The Sacramento Bee expands on the political significance of the Orca angle:

"Rea's agency is assessing the effect of California water operations on four protected species: winter- and spring-run salmon, Central Valley steelhead and green sturgeon. A key focus of the report is to minimize threats to these species caused by water diversions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the hub for 60 percent of California's freshwater supplies.Several observers said the link between salmon and the charismatic orca is certain to elevate California's water conflicts in the public mind. Though last year was historically bad for California fish and water supplies, restoration of the state's Delta and rivers has yet to grab the public's imagination like environmental problems in Florida's Everglades or the Brazilian rain forest. Much of the debate over the Delta has focused on the tiny Delta smelt, a threatened species few people have seen.The orca could change the game."

There is a clear political appetite to distribute the blame for the collapse of the Salmon fishery across a variety of potential causes, including global warming, increased predation from non-native species, changing ocean currents, diseases spread from farmed salmon, municipal pollution in the Delta, or whatever. It is all bullshit. There is exactly one primary reason for the spectacular nosedive of the salmon population over the last few years (as well as the delta smelt and striped bass). The immediate cause of the Sacramento salmon run collapse is water diversion out of the Delta from Northern California to Southern California and agricultural interests. Over a longer term, we can point to decades of water mismanagement by the state and federal government.

Blogger Pundita gets it right:

"After decades of California's inadequate water policies and studiously short-sighted hydropolitics (the politics of water and water resources) the only hope left this year is ample rain and snow. If the miracle doesn't materialize in a year expected to be dry, there's just simply not enough water to meet projected demands... I do not want to hear that California's water crisis is the result of global warming. It's the result of human nature compounded by stupidity. And three guesses who'll have to pick up the tab for rescuing Californians from that much stupidity."

Pundita also cross-posted an excellent analysis by Procrustes blogging at RBO with a detailed overview of the continuing California water wars and the political ground being staked out on every side:

"Bottom line? In addition to current drought conditions, decrepit infrastructure, invasive species, and the water quality itself at risk, that is? Reduced water deliveries and negative “economic impact” to the SWP and U.S.-operated CVP. M-O-N-E-Y."

Procrustes references a 2005 SF Chronicle article that points to the root of the crisis using the Westlands Water District as an example:

"Now, Westlands and other districts are successfully renewing their long-term contracts at current levels and at prices far below those paid by the state’s growing cities, despite protests that pumping large volumes of water south is killing Northern California’s fisheries. Westlands is singled out for particular criticism because of its size and the amount of water it receives, but also because the irrigation of its fields produces toxic drain water, threatening state waterways. Some critics say much of its acreage should be taken out of production.S o far, about 200 contracts have been approved, and 80 more are pending, including Westlands’. About 6 million acre feet of annual water deliveries is at stake. Farmers who get federal water are generally charged a fraction of the free-market rate."

David Zetland at Aguanomics puts this agricultural water use in perspective while quoting an analysis by Lloyd Carter:

"In a typical year the California agricultural industry uses about 34 million acre-feet of water or more than 80% of the developed water consumed by urban and agricultural users in the state. Between 30% and 50% of that water is used to grow four low value, water-intensive crops: cotton, rice, alfalfa and irrigated pasture. Those four low value, water-intensive crops contributed about $2.5 billion to California's economy in 2005. All of California agricultural production was about $32 billion in 2005. Gross state product in 2005 was about $1.62 trillion. Thus, the contribution of all agriculture to the state's economy was just under 2% of gross state product (1.975 %)and the contribution of cotton, rice, alfalfa and irrigated pasture was an infinitesimal 0.15 of 1% (fifteen one-hundredths of one percent). Westlands claims an annual gross in excess of a billion dollars which would be considerably less if all the public subsidies were factored in (cheap water, power subsidies, crop subsidies, interest free construction loan). Westlands is not even a blip on the state economy's radar screen, only about three percent of California's farm gross and a tiny, tiny fraction of one percent of the state's whole economy."

All insightful posts and highly recommended. These bloggers are now on my 'roll.

In California there is more money in agriculture that there is in fish. Where there is money, there is politics and pandering politicians. As the drought loomed last summer, a bipartisan alliance between Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein began stumping for a massive new peripheral canal and dam project to divert more Delta water. With the signing of the budget agreement and Feinstein on board, the project may again be moving to the front burner. Maybe it will even qualify for Obama stimulus infrastructure funding. Bipartisanship is overrated.

The current rainfall may (or may not) ease the water supplies and hardship sufficiently that a cease-fire in the California water wars can be maintained this year. But the underlying equation will not change. There is simply not enough water in the north for both a healthy salmon watershed, a cheap subsidized water supply for expanding valley agricultural interests, and an increasingly thirsty Los Angeles/San Diego metro area. Something has got to give. A choice must be made.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather have more wild salmon in California, than artificially cheap subsidized rice, cotton, and vegetables. But that is just me.

This problem was created by government and politicians, and can only be undone by those selfsame politicians. If you agree, encourage your representatives to do the right thing by signing a letter and petition at Water for Fish.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: Salmon, conservation, California, San Francisco, Dianne Feinstein, Arnold Schwarzenegger

Obama Endorses the Bush/Cheney Unitary Executive. Again and again and again.

UPDATED: 19-Feb-09
It was the most seductive argument to vote for Barack Obama - We need to elect a Democrat to "undo the damage" of the Bush administration. Although I agreed with the diagnosis, I could not concur with the treatment. The toxic side effects of Single Party Rule presented a greater risk than the potential benefit of curing the Bush/Cheney unitary executive disease. In particular, the prospect of the new President inheriting the expanded Bush/Cheney presidential power while his party held larger majorities than enjoyed by George W Bush and the Republicans was particularly frightening. Those fears were confirmed last week, when a very bad stimulus bill steamrolled a neutered Republican party, handing future generations more debt and putting the economic future of the country at risk.

That said, I expected to enjoy a couple of consolation prizes with the Obama victory. First, balance would be maintained in judicial appointments and on the Supreme Court, and second - Obama would indeed roll back some of the worst offenses of the Bush administration.While I still have high hopes for the first consolation prize, early indications are not promising for the second. Not promising at all.

Looking Back - The bad old Bush era.

As there is a lot of damage to undo, let us first put this in perspective by taking a walk down memory lane. The most egregious offenses of the Bush/Cheney administration fall under the umbrella of expanding executive branch power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches, with a commensurate erosion of constitutional protections. The worst of these occurred between 2000-2006 when the Republicans had control of both the executive and legislative branches. Details of many of the abuses under the expanded Unitary Executive branch first saw the light of day with congressional investigations initiated after 2006. Those revelations only came to light after divided government was restored with the Democrats taking majority control of the legislature (along with the subpoena power that accompanies majority control).This, of course, begs the question -With Single Party Rule again ascendant in Washington, who will investigate and provide oversight of the Obama administration?

The graphic at the top of the page is from an October 2004 Village Voice cover story by Rick Perlstein. Ah, the good old days. Back when liberals could really work up a good head of righteous indignation about a presidential power grab - like this Perlstein column from January 2005:

"The fantasy of total control has emerged as central to the Bush administration imagination. It comes out in the unguarded utterances: the aide who blurts to a New York Times reporter that he was just one more sad-sack member of the "reality-based community."... It shows up in the tautological narcissism of Bush's National Security Strategy document, which actually uses the phrase "the best defense is a good offense," and artfully constructs a vision in which whatever the United States does to preserve its interest is always already "peaceful," even when it requires war... The manifesto takes on ominous overtones when read alongside the famous post-9-11 draft Pentagon report that establishes a royalist conception of "sweeping" executive power as the only way to keep us safe: because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action to characterize the presidency rather than Congress."

Equally alarmed by the "royalist conception of sweeping executive powers", many libertarians found common cause with liberals, as dispassionately documented in the Cato study: "Power Surge: The Constitutional Record of George W Bush'"

"Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush administration has advanced a view of federal power that is astonishingly broad, a view that includes:

• a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech, and restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a federal election;
• a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the war on terror;
• a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as "enemy combatants," strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them up without charges for the duration of the war on terror, in other words, perhaps forever; and
• a federal government with the power to supervise virtually every aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.

President Bush's constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which authorizes a government of limited powers."

I know it has only been a month, but Obama works fast. It is time to checkpoint how President Obama is progressing on "undoing the damage" of the Bush/Cheney Imperial Presidency. There is some good stuff. The executive order to close Guantanamo in a year or so is very positive. But on balance... So far... not so good.

The Obama administration supports Bush era invocation of state secrecy to protect rendition and torture.

Anthony Romero - ACLU:
"After the British High Court ruled that evidence of British resident Binyam Mohamed's extraordinary rendition and torture at Guantánamo Bay must remain secret because of threats made by the Bush administration to halt intelligence sharing, the Obama administration told the BBC today in a written statement: "The United States thanks the UK government for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information and preserve the long-standing intelligence sharing relationship that enables both countries to protect their citizens." The following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union: "Hope is flickering. The Obama administration's position is not change. It is more of the same. This represents a complete turn-around and undermining of the restoration of the rule of law."

The Obama administration supports Bush era executive state secrecy claims to deny torture victims their day in court.

Glen Greenwald - Salon:
"What makes this particularly appalling and inexcusable is that Senate Democrats had long vehemently opposed the use of the "state secrets" privilege in exactly the way that the Bush administration used it in this case, even sponsoring legislation to limits its use and scope. Yet here is Obama, the very first chance he gets, invoking exactly this doctrine in its most expansive and abusive form to prevent torture victims even from having their day in court, on the ground that national security will be jeopardized if courts examine the Bush administration's rendition and torture programs -- even though (a) the rendition and torture programs have been written about extensively in the public record; (b) numerous other countries have investigated exactly these allegations; and (c) other countries have provided judicial forums in which these same victims could obtain relief... What this is clearly about is shielding the U.S. Government and Bush officials from any accountability. Worse, by keeping Bush's secrecy architecture in place, it ensures that any future President -- Obama or any other -- can continue to operate behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy, with no transparency or accountability even for blatantly criminal acts."

The Obama Administration supports invoking Bush era state secrecy to protect executive order illegal wiretapping and domestic surveillance.

Bob Egelko - San Francisco Chronicle:
"For the second time this week, the Obama administration has gone to court in San Francisco to argue for secrecy in defending a terrorism policy crafted under George W. Bush - in this case, wiretapping that President Obama denounced as a candidate... The dispute involves Walker's Jan. 5 order to allow plaintiffs who say the government illegally wiretapped their phones to read a classified surveillance document that could confirm the assertion and avoid dismissal of their suit. Lawyers for the Obama administration say the judge's decision "presents a clear-cut conflict between the court and the executive branch."

Out of fairness, I should point out that this last should not be a surprise. It is completely consistent with the July, 2008 version of Barack Obama who voted against the rule of law and in support of immunity for Telecom companies who cooperated with illegal government wiretap requests. OTOH it is a flip-flop from the January 2008 version of Barack Obama who promised to support a filibuster to prevent granting immunity to Telecom companies.

The Obama Administration opposes torture. Unless - you know - they decide they really need it.

Greg Sargent - the Plum Line:
"As I noted here yesterday, human rights advocates think that the executive order outlawing torture that President Obama signed yesterday preserves some wiggle room... Obama very strongly denounced torture yesterday as he signed the order outlawing it. But it’s nonetheless hard to avoid the conclusion that the administration does in fact want to preserve some kind of flexibility here, for reasons that are not yet entirely clear, at least to me."

The Obama Administration continues Bush-era unconstitutional blurring of the principle of Separation of Church and State.

New York Times Editorial:
"...there was reassuring language about maintaining the separation of church and state in Mr. Obama’s remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast preceding the issuance of his order, and in the order itself. But it would have been a lot more reassuring if the directive had actually revoked Mr. Bush’s 2002 executive order authorizing religious-oriented recipients of federal funding to hire and fire on religious grounds.We suspect that Mr. Obama was not particularly proud of this omission. He chose to sign his order away from the view of television cameras or an audience. Joshua DuBois, the Pentecostal minister selected by Mr. Obama to lead his initiative, says the president is “committed to nondiscrimination,” and that the executive order “provides a process” for case-by-case review to decide if grants to faith-based organizations are “consistent with law.” What process? The executive order says only that White House officials “may” seek Justice Department guidance if questions arise about particular grants. Discrimination by faith-based grantees should be barred.The case-by-case review seems destined to confuse as much as enlighten. And it is hardly the clear commitment to proper employment practices Mr. Obama voiced as a candidate, and the Constitution requires."

There are some other areas where the Obama administration appears to moving closer to the style and substance of the previous administration. Among them: Obama continues the much reviled White House Political Office - former home of Karl Rove; Obama appointed a political hack to the office of the White House Counsel, further opening the administration to comparisons with the Bush/Rove White Houses - and - while we are on the topic of Karl Rove; The Obama administration will apparently not challenge the constitutionally questionable Bush administration claims of "executive privilege" shielding Karl Rove from testimony before the legislature in the matter of U.S. Attorney General firings.

Where are the Liberals?

During the FISA debate, Markos Moulitsas asked "Where are the Libertarians?". He obviously was not looking very hard. No matter. As we now watch Barack Obama embrace and defend the Constitution trampling, power grabbing excesses and abuses of the Bush/Cheney imperial presidency, it is time to ask "Where are the Liberals?" Or at least Kos? There are some DailyKos community diaries qu0ting Greenwald, but I cannot find a story from him in the last two weeks on Obama's Justice Department defending these Bush administration positions. There is a lot happening on that site. Maybe I missed it.

Certainly there are more than a few liberals who have not hesitated to pick up the gauntlet, most notably Glen Greenwald, as he takes to task those whose loyalty is not to principle but to a man:

"During the 2008 election, Obama co-opted huge portions of the Left and its infrastructure so that their allegiance became devoted to him and not to any ideas. Many online political and "news" outlets -- including some liberal political blogs -- discovered that the most reliable way to massively increase traffic was to capitalize on the pro-Obama fervor by turning themselves into pro-Obama cheerleading squads.... on one issue after the next, one can vividly observe the harm that comes from a political faction being beholden to a leader rather than to any actual ideas or political principles."

Greenwald's analysis is instructive. It explains why so many on the left greet Obama's support and active defense of the Bush/Cheney model of the unitary executive with a yawn. It is not the principle of checks, balances and constitutional protections that inform their view of the world. For some (many?) on the left, it is about blind loyalty to a leader and a party. From their perspective, Bush/Cheney executive power is not a problem if Obama is in the White House. Apparently, with the ring of power in Barack Obama's benevolent hands, the Bush/Cheney executive power will only be used for good. Just put your trust in Barack -not in the rule of law - not in the Constitution - but in the man. These Obama supporters resemble nothing so much as the right-wing apologists for Bush administration excesses.

Greenwald again:

"What we need far more than a benevolent and magnanimous President is a re-assertion of Congressional authority as a check on executive power. Even if Obama decided unilaterally to refrain from exercising some of the powers which the Bush administration seized, that would be a woefully insufficient check against future abuse, since it would mean that these liberties would be preserved only when a benevolent ruler occupies the White House (and, then, only when the benevolent occupant decides not to use the power). Acts of Congress -- along with meaningful, enforced oversight of the President -- are indispensable for preventing these abuses. And that's true whether or not one believes that the current occupant of the Oval Office is a good, kind and trustworthy ruler."

Under the current incarnation of One Party Rule, the Republicans are impotent in the face of Obama and his large Democratic majority. The only hope for any moderation of the power of this presidency, must come from principled civil libertarian Democratic legislators in Congress (Feingold, Feinstein, and Leahy are stepping up). The only hope for economic sanity, must come from Democratic fiscal conservatives like the few Democratic representatives in the House of Representatives that voted against Porkulus.

It's a Hope™.

DISCLOSURE: DWSUWF Obama Criticism Credentials
In this post I criticize Barack Obama policies. For the benefit of any readers of a left leaning partisan inclination who cannot tolerate such criticism, nor read criticism of his policies without assuming the source to be their right-wing partisan doppleganger, I offer these links. A selection of past posts from this blog on issues that are more important to DWSUWF than the party or personality inhabiting the White House. Including: The Patriot Act, the Military Commission Act and excutive branch preemption of Habeas Corpus; The FISA capitulation bill and erosion of 4th Amendment search and seizure protections, Torture and renditions in violation of the Geneva Convention; The principle of Separation of Church and State; Executive branch usurpation of congressional war power oversight; and 1st Amendment free speech protections.

UPDATED:19-Feb-09
Glenn Greenwald posted again on this topic yesterday, dismantling the “its only been three weeks” objection. Plus he includes my absolute favorite founding father quote - James Madison in Federalist #51 explaining the need for checks and balances with the phrase "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition." That quote is in our sidebar and in the title and used in several past posts. For those reasons, plus the fact I can never hope to write as well as him, plus his unquestioned credibility with left of center readers, I have no choice but to quote him here again, but encourage you to read the whole article:

“There’s just no denying that there are substantial and disturbing steps which have been taken. And critically, the primary excuse offered by Obama supporters for all of these actions — he just needs more time; it’s only been three weeks — is a complete straw man... Not even the Obama DOJ is claiming they needed more time. They’re saying they had all the time they needed, so Obama supporters should really stop trying to defend them by offering up excuses that the Obama administration itself rejects.…

There are people who believe that Barack Obama is kind, just and good, and thus are going to have a hard time believing that he’s embracing some of the most abusive Bush/Cheney policies even when he does it right in front of their faces. Others aren’t ever going to object to what Obama does in this area, because they believe (as Bush supporters believed about Bush) that there’s nothing really wrong if Obama wields these same powers since Obama is a kind-hearted ruler and therefore can be trusted not to abuse these powers. As DCLaw pointed out yesterday, people with that swooning mentality can’t be reached because they don’t really believe in the basic premise on which the country was founded, as enunciated by James Madison in Federalist 51…

We don’t place faith in the Goodness and kindness of specific leaders — even Barack Obama — to secretly exercise powers for our own Good. We rely instead on transparency and on constant compulsory limits on those powers as imposed by the Constitution, by other branches, and by law. That’s what it means to be a nation of laws and not men. When Obama embraces the same abusive and excessive powers that Bush embraced, it isn’t better because it’s Obama rather than Bush wielding that power. It’s the same. And that’s true even if one “trusts” Obama more than Bush"

I'd like be optimistic on this subject, but am having a hard time getting there. As I said, what hope I do have comes from the Democrats in Congress who are moving to begin the process of restraining executive power, and/or in the hope that Obama will appoint Supreme Court justices that will strike down the kind of expanded presidential power that Obama supports.

If it does come down to a showdown between Congress and the Executive branch, it’ll be interesting to see what the Republicans do. Obama may very well find common cause with many Republicans to preserve the Bush/Cheney expanded powers.

An excerpt of this post was cross-posted at Donklephant, where you'll also find an interesting comment thread.

Surprisingly, not everyone agrees with me.

Divided and Balanced.™
Now that is fair.

Technorati tags: libertarian , Barack Obama, Divided Government, Constitution, FISA, Torture, Unitary Executive, Executive Privilege.