Carlyle’s “dismal science”

This week, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) had a meeting to introduce its new publication, “Water and the California Economy.” This publication was funded (as the PPIC’s other water-related think-tank efforts have been) by the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation, which has an ongoing interest in the kinds of analysis that make Delta conveyance seem like the most reasonable solution to California’s water challenge. (In this 21-page report, we find 26 references to “catastrophic,” as in flooding and supply interruptions.)

At this week’s meeting, Resources Secretary John Laird weighed in with the observation that increasing habitat in the Delta will allow for additional water to be exported. That was his public comment.

What science supports that?

On a group conference call led by Secretary Laird last week – that’s the phone call that the Resources Agency is denying that happened where they announced BDCP Plus, (build the canal and figure out the science later), Charlton Bonham, the head of the Department of Fish and Game, admitted that they do not know if new habitat will create the food chain to restore fisheries and that Fish and Game does not know what exactly is the interface between habitat for fish and flows through the Delta.

Apparently, the only science Secretary Laird is paying attention to is the “dismal science” of politics.

Related Posts