He very much is, you can also see later in the article:
Yes, to solve the "drought" in a few short years, there are two basic tasks that California needs to undertake.
The argument made in the earlier part is clearly intended to be on-the-level as he assumes at this point that the reader is convinced by it enough to not call the current once-in-a-millenium drought a drought anymore.
He's trying to engineer a solution to the drought. Engineering a solution to X does not imply X does not exist; that would be stupid.
But if we want to dwell on semantics -- a drought is defined as being an aberration from some norm. Given climate change, the drought in california isn't a "drought" but a change in norms -- this isn't a "once-in-a-millenium-drought" but, in fact, a new normal (didn't NOA just predict a multi-decade drought in California to be a virtual certainty in the next century?)
Yes, to solve the "drought" in a few short years, there are two basic tasks that California needs to undertake.
The argument made in the earlier part is clearly intended to be on-the-level as he assumes at this point that the reader is convinced by it enough to not call the current once-in-a-millenium drought a drought anymore.