California’s water woes are the stuff of legend, and environmentalist Mindy McIntyre (California Planning and Conservation League) and bureaucrat Lester Snow (California Department of Water Resources) square off this week in the Los Angeles Times, offering competing visions for how to providing enough clean water to balance the needs of families and wildlife in the state. Two things to keep in mind before I grade their work:

• The LA Times is losing readers and writers faster than the industry as a whole, so this worthy debate won’t have the influence on opinion it would have had five or ten years ago.
• Everyday citizens find these “he said she said” debates to be hard to follow. According to a 2005 Yale University study, more than half of Americans (53%) agree with this statement: “There is so much information and disagreement in the media that I don’t know who to believe about what is best for the environment.”

This second point means that the likely “winner” of this debate will be the one who states their case the most clearly to readers. Now the critiques:

Lester Snow: “Don’t be fooled by the rain — we’re in a water emergency.” C+

Snow uses only a few words that work: “investment” several times, “healthy” once, and “conservation” a few times. He could use a lot more: The whole piece is basically a call for Californians to work together, plan ahead, and… um… build more dams (not your humble blogger’s solution of choice).

Snow makes some word choice mistakes that environmental professionals often make: he uses “climate change” where he could use “global warming,” he uses “water quality” where he could use “clean water” or “enough clean water,” etc… Insisting on using professionally-correct lingo sucks some punch out of his piece.

But I think the biggest mistake Snow makes is structure his piece like a scientific paper: facts first, conclusions last. He should reverse that — Snow should make his point (”We need to work together, plan ahead, and build more dams”) before he provide the facts that prove his point (snowpack, global warming, delta smelt, cfs, hydrology, blah blah blah). As is, many readers will lose interest before he gets to the punchline.

Mindy McIntyre, “Old solutions won’t solve today’s crisis.” B-

McIntyre is also bit sparse with the words that work: “conservation” a few times, “nature” once, and “healthy” a couple of times. She could use a lot more: Her whole piece is basically a call for Californians to work together, plan ahead, and use the water they have more wisely (Your humble blogger prefers this approach).

I give McIntyre bonus points for a pararaph where she writes that some California fish species are facing extinction, rather than writing that they are “endangered.” The term “endangered” is polarizing — your friends love you more, your enemies fear and hate you more. But nobody likes extinction.

McIntyre’s big mistake is venture into economic arguments. She’s not a credible messenger on this point. And if Californians believe that more dams are the only or best way to keep the water flowing, they’ll say “to hell with what it costs.”

I declare McIntyre the winner by a nose here, though. This line is a killer:

We cannot rely on strategies from the past to solve the problems they created and address the water issues of the future.

If she’d opened her piece with this, she’d have knocked Snow out cold. As it is, McIntyre wins the first round but there’s more to come.

Hat tip to the fine Aquafornia blog for spotting the debate.