Blog
from NRDC – Friday, Oct. 29, 2010
By Kate Poole
Coalition viewpoint… This court decision did not reject the Family Water Alliance’s petition on grounds that the science used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is valid. In fact, the judge has already ruled that FWS’s science in formulating its biological opinion that governs Delta flows is lacking. The judge’s ruling explained that the Information Quality Act, upon which the Alliance brought its lawsuit, is insufficiently specific with respect to deadlines and so the Alliance's complaint was moot on procedural grounds. The court did not rule on the science or the substance of the Alliance's complaint. This blogger’s attempt to paint over the judge’s decision with a “scientific paint brush” is false and misleading.
Story
from SmartPlanet – Thursday, Oct. 28, 2010
Coalition viewpoint…When it comes to applying the California Constitution’s beneficial use standards to farming, Peter Gleick’s one-size fits all approach is all wet. Saying that a farmer who uses four acres to grow what could be grown on three is wasting water ignores the variability of farmland throughout the state. If a farmer produces 4,000 lbs. of pistachios per acre and his neighbor produces 5,000 lbs on the same age trees, is the first farmer wasting water? Gleick would say “yes” but he’s wrong. One farm’s potential cannot be judged efficient or not efficient based on the same standard applied to all farms anymore than one factory producing fewer widgets than its competitor would be judged as wasting resources.
The Constitution says farming is a beneficial use of water. People like Peter Gleick want to redefine it for their own purposes and that kind of misuse is a bad deal for all California water users.
Another View: New reservoirs, yes – but be fair about who pays
Viewpoint
from Sacramento Bee – Sunday, Oct. 31 2010
By Paul Wenger, CFBF President
Coalition viewpoint…Critics of a balanced approach to achieving water reliability in the future for our state conveniently mix rhetoric with facts. They argue falsely that farmers use too much water and simply taking water from farmers and letting it flow to the ocean through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta will cure everything wrong with the fisheries. California farmers use only 41% of the available water supply in California. The largest recipient is the environment, which receives 48% of the available water. Critics of a balanced approach to expanding our water supply, as suggested by Wenger, must be fearful that they may have to pay for a water supply that they have been receiving for free.
Water agencies say estimated cost for Sacramento System upgrade too high
Story
from Sacramento Business Journal – Friday, Oct. 29, 2010
Editorial
from NY Times – Sunday, Oct. 31, 2010
Salmon on Mokelumne up sharply
Story
from Stockton Record – Saturday, Oct. 30, 2010
Weather tolerant crops next big advance?
Story
from Western Farm Press RSS Feed
No comments:
Post a Comment