From the Stockton Record's
Alex Breitler:
One of the Delta smelt
scientists so sharply
criticized by former federal
judge Oliver Wanger has
received an in-house award
for her work on the
contested biological
opinion.
Jennifer Norris last month
was given the Star Award
from U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service Pacific Southwest
Regional Manager Ren
Lohoefener, along with fish
biologist Matt Nobriga.
The announcement makes no
reference to the
controversy, though it does
mention that Norris and
Nobriga both testified
before Wanger and "performed
outstandingly while working
under intense pressure."
In addition to Norris, the
judge criticized the work of
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
scientist Frederick Feyrer.
Specifically, Wanger called
Norris a "zealot" and
claimed she had not been
honest with the court.
Wanger’s words made
political waves and, earlier
this month, the Department
of Interior said independent
experts would review the
science behind his
allegations.
Talk about chutzpah!
Breitler rightly notes the
irony of a federal agency
giving its employee high
praise shortly after a
federal judge's
determination that the
staffer
provided court testimony in
bad faith.
But it's important to note
that the delta smelt
biological opinion is not
simply being "contested"--it
is in fact illegal.
Of course, you won't find that in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's award announcement:
During the award
presentation at a Pacific
Southwest Region All Hands
meeting on Sept. 26, 2011,
Regional staff members were
addressed by Fish and
Wildlife Service Deputy
Director Rowan Gould, via
phone from Washington, D.C.,
and Bureau of Reclamation
Regional Director Don
Glaser.
In December 2008, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service
established court-ordered
criteria for managing water
flows through the Delta and
issued a biological opinion
that determined the effects
of operating the state and
federal water projects were
putting the delta smelt at
risk of extinction. Since
then, there has been a
series of court challenges
on various aspects of the
biological opinion, and
earlier this year, Norris
and Nobriga both testified
before U.S District Court
Judge Oliver Wanger in
Fresno.
Left unmentioned by the
Service is that the court
has found the biological
opinion to be unlawful,
time
and
time
and
time
again. To say that the
Service's annoucement lacks
context is just a bit of an
understatement.
Moreover, given the
circumstances, the awards
presentation is of
questionable taste,
suggesting that it's
business as usual at the
Service. This is
unfortunate, and it reminds
me of Judge Wanger's
admonition to the Service
and the Bureau of
Reclamation in
his
recent X2 decision:
The agencies still "don't
get it." They continue to
believe their "right to be
mistaken" excuses precise
and competent scientific
analysis for actions they
know will wreak havoc on
California's water supply.
Based on this latest
self-lauding at the Service,
who knows whether the
agencies will ever fully
grasp the importance of what
is at stake?