The Science Charade in Species Conservation

Supreme Court Economic Review | September 2nd, 2017

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is among the nation’s most important and powerful environmental laws. It is also a source of great conflict and controversy.  The list

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is among the nation’s most important and powerful environmental laws. It is also a source of great conflict and controversy.  The listing of individual species, the designation of critical habitat and the implementation of conservation measures often prompt fierce legal and political battles. In these conflicts, activists on all sides claim that “sound science” supports their respective positions, and scoff at the “junk science” relied upon by the other side. The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service fails to rely upon the best science, critics claim.  If it did, they charge, it would adopt policies more to their liking.  The debate over the use of science under the ESA is part of the “science charade” that clouds substantive policy debate about species conservation.3 What typically divides competing interest groups is not a devotion to science, but sharply divergent policy preferences dressed up in scientific garb. The political debate over the use of science under the ESA tends to obscure the dividing line between science and policy and undermines the development of more effective and equitable conservation strategies. Further, efforts to reform the ESA by mandating additional scientific procedures or increasing judicial scrutiny of the use of science by federal agencies will do little to address the ESA’s underlying problems or make species conservation efforts more effective.  Scientific research is necessary to inform species conservation decisions. But species conservation is not – and cannot be – a wholly scientific exercise. Judgments about what constitutes a distinct species or how to evaluate incomplete scientific data necessarily draw upon normative premises. More significantly, policy decisions about what sorts of conservation measures should be adopted are not scientific at all. Whether habitat loss will reduce the likelihood that a given species or population will survive in the wild may be a scientific question, but what measures should be adopted to conserve such habitat, and at what cost, is a normative policy judgment. Science can – indeed, must – inform such inquiries, but science cannot tell us what to do. Engaging in the “science charade,” either by pretending that ESA implementation may be guided by scientific judgment alone or by claiming that reforms of how science is used is unlikely to improve species conservation. To the contrary, efforts to constrain or control the use of science in ESA listing decisions or enhance judicial review of agency scientific determinations will undermine the quality and reliability of ESA science and lead to less effective conservation policy.  Whatever ails the ESA, a failure to incorporate adequate science is not the cause of the disease. As this Article explains, efforts to augment the amount or type of science used in ESA decision-making, whether through additional procedural mandates or altered standards of judicial review, will not address the conflicts that afflict species conservation policy. In some cases, such measures could further undermine the ESA’s ability to conserve species.  Part I of the Article gives a brief overview of the ESA, its operation, and the scientific requirements written into the Act. Part II describes the “science charade,” through which policymakers and others pretend that policy judgments are purely scientific questions, and the legal and political incentives that ensure this artifice persists. Part III details how the ESA’s structure generates political pressure on the use of science and encourages the science charade in species conservation. Part IV explains why various “sound science” reforms will not address these problems, and Part V outlines alternative policy reforms. 

The season for large fires in Southern California is projected to lengthen in a changing climate

Nature Portfolio (Springer Nature) | February 17th, 2022

Southern California is a biodiversity hotspot and home to over 23 million people. Over recent decades the annual wildfire area in the coastal southern California region h

Southern California is a biodiversity hotspot and home to over 23 million people. Over recent decades the annual wildfire area in the coastal southern California region has not significantly changed. Yet how fire regime will respond to future anthropogenic climate change remains an important question. Here, we estimate wildfire probability in southern California at station scale and daily resolution using random forest algorithms and downscaled earth system model simulations. We project that large fire days will increase from 36 days/year during 1970–1999 to 58 days/year under moderate greenhouse gas emission scenario (RCP4.5) and 71 days/year by 2070–2099 under a high emission scenario (RCP8.5). The large fire season will be more intense and have an earlier onset and delayed end. Our findings suggest that despite the lack of a contemporary trend in fire regime, projected greenhouse gas emissions will substantially increase the fire danger in southern California by 2099.

The Seasonal Cycle of Surface Soil Moisture

American Meteorological Society (AMS) | June 29th, 2022

The seasonal cycle contributes substantially to soil moisture temporal variability in many parts of the world, with important implications for seasonal forecasting releva

The seasonal cycle contributes substantially to soil moisture temporal variability in many parts of the world, with important implications for seasonal forecasting relevant to agriculture and the health of humans and ecosystems. There is considerable spatial variability in the seasonal cycle of soil moisture, yet a lack of global observations has hindered the development of parsimonious theories explaining that variability. Here, we use 6 years of global satellite observations to describe and explain the seasonal cycle of surface soil moisture globally. An unsupervised clustering algorithm is used to identify five distinct seasonal cycle regimes. Each seasonal cycle regime typically arises in both hemispheres, on multiple continents, and across substantially different local climates. To explain this spatial variability, we then show that the observed seasonal cycle regimes are reproduced very well by a simple but physically based water balance model, which only uses precipitation and downwelling surface shortwave radiation as inputs, and includes no free parameters. Surprisingly, no information on vegetation or land cover is required. To our knowledge, this is the first characterization of the seasonal cycle of surface soil moisture based on global observations.

The seven Colorado River Basin states letter to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 5/22/23

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) | May 22nd, 2023

The Stakes are Rising: Lessons on Engaging Coastal Communities on Climate Adaptation in Southern California

Cities and the Environment | November 16th, 2017

Preparing for climate change is rising as a priority for many public policy agendas, driving a demand for information that allows communities to identify both cur

Preparing for climate change is rising as a priority for many public policy agendas, driving a demand for information that allows communities to identify both current and projected vulnerabilities to climate change at local and regional levels. In response, a developing climate change adaptation service sector is bringing science and technical training to policy-makers. Approaching adaptation planning through a regional lens is critical, due to the large number of stakeholders and the intensely interconnected nature of geographies, communities, and economies. Decisions made in one jurisdiction will undoubtedly affect its neighbors. In this emerging field, boundary organizations play a unique role in building capacity across jurisdictions and bridging the gaps among various community, science and government stakeholders. The University of Southern California (USC) Sea Grant Program, located in Los Angeles, has developed a robust stakeholder engagement process to help communities plan for the impacts of climate change along the urbanized coastline. In 2016, USC Sea Grant analyzed its climate change adaptation outreach program to gain insights about its effectiveness. Drawing from this analysis, this paper explores: 1) stakeholder processes; 2) communications methods, particularly the challenges of communicating scientific information; 3) barriers to planning and implementation; 4) how to identify community needs; and, 5) what kinds of investments have been made to meet those needs. Four primary lessons are identified: 1) place-based boundary organizations can be an effective broker in establishing trust among stakeholders; 2) the ever-evolving and complex nature of climate science can overwhelm stakeholders and stall progress, so it is important to emphasize key messages provided by the scientific information, rather than dive deep into technical details and methods; 3) adaptive management is a promising approach to help communities move forward; and, 4) lack of significant and sustained funding for adaptation will continue to limit progress, however, even modest investments made at the right time can be impactful. Finally, the paper discusses the challenges USC Sea Grant faced in the first six years of its climate adaptation outreach program, and provides thoughts on how to help communities continue to advance their adaptation planning goals in the years to come.

The State Water Resources Control Board's Role in Implementing the Delta Plan

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) | April 5th, 2011

The Delta Plan should identify the authorities of the State Water Board that may be employed to implement its goals, subgoals, and strategies. The State Water Board’s B

The Delta Plan should identify the authorities of the State Water Board that may be employed to implement its goals, subgoals, and strategies. The State Water Board’s Bay Delta Plan and Delta Strategic Workplan should be incorporated into the Delta Plan.

The Sustainability Outlook: A Summary

California Department of Water Resources (DWR) | December 13th, 2018

Whether making water resource decisions or taking action, aligning desirable outcomes with four societal values — public health and safety, healthy economy, ecosystem v

Whether making water resource decisions or taking action, aligning desirable outcomes with four societal values — public health and safety, healthy economy, ecosystem vitality, and enriching experiences — is critical to managing water for sustainability. It can be as simple as being mindful of not wasting water, and as complex as predicting and planning for the next drought or flood. Daily, every Californian is responsible for doing their part. But how will Californians know whether their actions are moving the state in the right direction?  One basic long-standing challenge to water resource resilience and reliability in California is the lack of a consistent and practical method for assessing current and future sustainability (California Department of Water Resources, in prep.). Productive planning and the setting of policy priorities require a mutual understanding of challenges, resource limitations, management deficiencies, and shared intent. Managing for sustainability must be rooted in what Californians value, as expressed by stakeholders and corroborated by extensive outreach. Accordingly, there is a need to identify, through the lens of the four societal values, desirable water management outcomes (intended outcomes) and indicators to track status and progress toward sustainability.  The Sustainability Outlook, described in this document, provides a well-organized and consistent approach for tracking local, regional, and State actions and investments. It will also assist in setting future water management priorities. When applied at a watershed scale, the Sustainability Outlook can increase the effectiveness of State water policies and return on investments. Conducting and reporting watershed conditions will more clearly reveal trends, progress, and return on investment that would be difficult to discern at a statewide scale. Watershed evaluations will also allow for the introduction of additional indicators important to specific regions of the state. Through progressive application of the Sustainability Outlook, decision-makers will be able to identify needed analytical tools and data gaps, expand on the information available to make decisions, and build a common understanding of how individual and collective actions have affected the management of water resources for sustainability.  Because sustainability is not something achieved once and forever, the Sustainability Outlook will help water resource managers adapt to changing circumstances and lessons learned. This document underscores the urgency and rationale for the recommended actions in California Water Plan Update 2018 (Update 2018), Chapter 3, “Actions for Sustainability,” as well as the importance of follow-through by those who would implement those actions.” 

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act challenges the diversity of California farms

California Agriculture (UCANR) | November 16th, 2016

California’s agricultural sector, a major groundwater user, finds itself in the midst of the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The la

California’s agricultural sector, a major groundwater user, finds itself in the midst of the implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The law mandates the formation of local groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) and adoption of groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs) for all overdrafted groundwater basins across the state by 2020. Each GSA will be unique, with its own governance structures and rules, including the size and composition of the governing board, mechanisms for representing different interests, opportunities for stakeholders to participate, and rules concerning the allocation of pumping “rights” and the use of economic instruments, such as pumping permits, pumping taxes or tiered pricing, to incentivize pumping curtailments (DWR 2016). This new water management landscape may threaten the diversity of the state’s farming operations.

The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | February 17th, 2017

Between 2000 and 2014, annual Colorado River flows averaged 19% below the 1906–1999 average, the worst 15-year drought on record. At least one-sixth to one-half (averag

Between 2000 and 2014, annual Colorado River flows averaged 19% below the 1906–1999 average, the worst 15-year drought on record. At least one-sixth to one-half (average at one-third) of this loss is due to unprecedented temperatures (0.9°C above the 1906–1999 average), confirming model-based analysis that continued warming will likely further reduce flows. Whereas it is virtually certain that warming will continue with additional emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, there has been no observed trend toward greater precipitation in the Colorado Basin, nor are climate models in agreement that there should be a trend. Moreover, there is a significant risk of decadal and multidecadal drought in the coming century, indicating that any increase in mean precipitation will likely be offset during periods of prolonged drought. Recently published estimates of Colorado River flow sensitivity to temperature combined with a large number of recent climate model-based temperature projections indicate that continued business-as-usual warming will drive temperature-induced declines in river flow, conservatively −20% by midcentury and −35% by end-century, with support for losses exceeding −30% at midcentury and −55% at end-century. Precipitation increases may moderate these declines somewhat, but to date no such increases are evident and there is no model agreement on future precipitation changes. These results, combined with the increasing likelihood of prolonged drought in the river basin, suggest that future climate change impacts on the Colorado River flows will be much more serious than currently assumed, especially if substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions do not occur.

The twenty‐first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future

American Geophysical Union (AGU) | February 17th, 2017

Between 2000 and 2014, annual Colorado River flows averaged 19% below the 1906–1999 average, the worst 15‐year drought on record. At least one‐sixth to one‐half (

Between 2000 and 2014, annual Colorado River flows averaged 19% below the 1906–1999 average, the worst 15‐year drought on record. At least one‐sixth to one‐half (average at one‐third) of this loss is due to unprecedented temperatures (0.9°C above the 1906–1999 average), confirming model‐based analysis that continued warming will likely further reduce flows. Whereas it is virtually certain that warming will continue with additional emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, there has been no observed trend toward greater precipitation in the Colorado Basin, nor are climate models in agreement that there should be a trend. Moreover, there is a significant risk of decadal and multidecadal drought in the coming century, indicating that any increase in mean precipitation will likely be offset during periods of prolonged drought. Recently published estimates of Colorado River flow sensitivity to temperature combined with a large number of recent climate model‐based temperature projections indicate that continued business‐as‐usual warming will drive temperature‐induced declines in river flow, conservatively −20% by midcentury and −35% by end‐century, with support for losses exceeding −30% at midcentury and −55% at end‐century. Precipitation increases may moderate these declines somewhat, but to date no such increases are evident and there is no model agreement on future precipitation changes. These results, combined with the increasing likelihood of prolonged drought in the river basin, suggest that future climate change impacts on the Colorado River flows will be much more serious than currently assumed, especially if substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions do not occur.