Clarity bought to the watershed debate by a veteran vintner and grower
"[Opponent of C] Mr. Smith sounds the drumbeat of "where's the science?" knowing full well that there is ample science. The Watershed Task Force compiled and summarized the science associated with protecting vs. deforesting watersheds. The Dunne report (2001) systematically detailed the cumulative and permanent impact of deforestation. Mr. Smith has been an active participant in the consideration of the science involved, and his claim that none exists is disingenuous. What science would he like to argue with?
The beneficial services of oak forests? The negative impact of deforestation? The benefits of tertiary and secondary streams? The detriment of Roundup to our waterways? (Higgins, 2018)
Would he like to argue that vineyards don't use water drawn from the water table? He begins to sound like the climate change deniers who look straight at the science and declare it to be opinion. Can he show any science that shows that deforestation is good? A single case? No, I didn't think so."