University of the Pacific business forecasting prof Jeffrey Michael dropped an interesting bit of news at today’s water forum in Sacramento.
The news: Job loss estimates by the salmon fishing industry may be greatly exaggerated – as were earlier estimates for agriculture in the south San Joaquin Valley.
“Job loss exaggerations are now officially an epidemic in the water debate,” Michael wrote in his blog, Valley Economy.
For months, Michael has been saying publicly that water-related job losses in the south Valley were not as severe as other economists and many media reports had portrayed. He said most of the area’s struggles with unemployment were because of the flattened economy, not a lack of water. And of those job losses that could be blamed on lack of water, most were because of the drought and not Endangered Species Act protections for fish.
This didn’t go over well with the mayor of Mendota, among other interests in the south Valley, where fish have become the primary villain. Michael was basically accused of racism in this opinion piece co-authored by Mendota Mayor Robert Silva.
That issue, combined with Michael’s decision to publicly question the PPIC’s math on supporting the peripheral canal, had him labeled in some quarters as an anti-farm activist.
His latest announcement, however, seems to call out the “other side” in the war of water rhetoric.
While he’s not finished working the numbers, Michael said he is seriously questioning an economic analysis commissioned by the fishing industry which claims 23,000 jobs lost between commercial and recreational salmon fishing in 2009.
Michael told the crowd at today’s forum that about 20,000 of those “lost” jobs were a result of ”dubious treatment of statewide seafood retail sales.”
Michael said he believes actual job losses because of the salmon fishing shutdown may be closer to 2,200 jobs — less than 10 percent of the 23,000 figure which has been repeated in some media accounts and, last week, by members of Congress who wrote a letter to Dianne Feinstein opposing her bid to send more water south.
In the end, both of Michael’s analyses tentatively reveal what appears to the layman to be almost a wash: 2,200 fishing jobs lost because of plunging salmon populations, and 2,000 farm jobs lost because of environmental restrictions to protect smelt at the pumps.
Michael cautions that all jobs are not created equal and that there are other factors in play to determine the ultimate economic cost for both the fishing and farm sectors. Ultimately, however, the salmon fishing losses reported thusfar “may be more inflated” than the early estimate of 80,000 farm jobs, he said.
