At least he didn't say 40,000 lost jobs ...

I suppose I should be happy that this commentary at least cites the latest numbers from UC-Davis, even if they continue to be too high. The errors of fact and logic in this piece from the Bakersfield Californian are typical, and they need to be corrected.

It attributes all the losses to the Smelt restrictions, when reality it is mostly drought and at most 25% endangered species restrictions. In fact, the experts at UC-Berkeley have estimated agricultural losses due to the Delta Smelt of only $48.4 million in an average year (more in a drought like the current period). Water exporters even paid for the study.

Then, the commentary goes on to suggest that the $20 billion state budget deficit is somehow connected to the loss of $100-200 million in crops this year, and to ignore the fact that unemployment in these towns that regularly exceeds 30% unemployment with full water supplies.

This blog must be sounding like a broken record, but I continue to be amazed at the scale of the exagerrations that continue to lead water exporter arguments.

Californians lost 21,000 jobs and California's economy lost $703 million in agricultural revenue due to pumping restrictions in 2009, according to experts at the University of California. Unemployment in some towns exceeds 40 percent. California faces a $21 billion budget shortfall through June 2011, according to the California Legislative Analyst's Office. California needs to strengthen its economy, not let it be impoverished by further water restrictions.