Mark Hitchcock Legal Fellow, EDF
Yesterday’s federal court ruling issuing an injunction against portions of the 2009 salmon Biological Opinion is disappointing and even alarming. We are extremely appreciative of Earthjustice and NRDC for their great work in handling the litigation, but dismayed that a federal judge chose to strike down measures that were recently endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. As Doug Obegi from NRDC points out, the Court ignored numerous findings that the salmon protections at issue are supported by the best available science.
In halting implementation of protections for salmon, the Court regurgitated old arguments and invented some new ones. Weighing the costs of an injunction against the benefits to salmon and our natural ecosystem, the court wrote:
“Harms that have been caused by [environmental] water supply reductions include but are not limited to: destruction of permanent crops; fallowed lands; increased groundwater consumption; land subsidence; reduction of air quality; destruction of family and entity farming businesses; and social disruption and dislocation, such as increased property crimes and intra-family crimes of violence, adverse effects on schools, and increased unemployment leading to hunger and homelessness.” (¶ 6, page 91)(Emphasis added).
While there are serious problems with the claims made in the first part of this excerpt, the second half of that statement is absurd and unsupported by evidence elsewhere in the opinion. Salmon are now being blamed for domestic violence? Fish cause property damage and are the cause of California’s failing schools? Really? Where is the evidence to support these findings? Have we lost all perspective?
Further, it is highly questionable whether there is any credible evidence that reductions in water supplies are to blame for the other evils cited by the Court. The Department of Water Resources has made clear that the huge majority of water reductions are a result of drought – not the relatively limited protections attributable to the effort to prevent salmon from becoming extinct. In its decision the Court acknowledged expert testimony that “it is a combination of factors, including the three-year drought, the global economic recession, the foreclosure crisis, and the collapse of the real estate market and construction industry, that are mainly driving crop and job losses, food bank needs, and credit problems in the Central Valley” (¶196 at 83). However, it ultimately chose to ignore that testimony. The Court's decision also ignored expert testimony “that the commercial fishing industry has suffered tremendous losses as a result of the near total collapse of California’s salmon fishery, which precipitated a shutdown of the salmon fishing seasons in 2008 and 2009 and threatens another shutdown in the future” (¶ 204 at 86).
While we recognize the economic pain felt throughout the Central Valley and genuinely feel for those in need, it is unreasonable and unfair to blame salmon for the impacts of the nation’s worst recession since the 1930’s.
Given that the viability of California salmon is at stake, it’s alarming that the court eliminated essential protections based on reasoning that ignored the effects of the economic collapse and years of devastating drought. Instead, the Court relied on unsupported claims that doing the bare minimum necessary to ensure the existence of salmon has lead to “intra-family crimes of violence”, failing schools, hunger and homelessness. Once again, where is the evidence to support such serious claims?