From Bilingual Weekly - Monday, Oct. 17, 2011
Coalition response...Having spent 45 minutes on the phone and providing written responses to a number of questions by the author as she prepared for this story makes me wonder if she was even paying attention. Suggesting that I was critical of urban water conservation efforts to meet growing demand is completely opposite to what I said. Urban water agencies have done a tremendous job on water conservation. My point was that it made little sense for farms to take water away from food production just to let it flow out to the ocean with no proven benefit to the environment. I pointed out that in order for farmers to reduce water use by significant margins it would require fallowing large amounts of farmland. The author confirmed to me personally that she had received the same information from university irrigation experts. She must have ignored that fact in order to arrive at the conclusion that significantly new water savings in agriculture are possible simply by changing irrigation practices.
What the story completely missed and should be important to every consumer is that it takes adequate and dependable water supplies to grow the food people buy to feed their families. If you're not growing your own food someone else is growing it for you. Taking water away from farmers means less variety and abundance of California farm products in the stores and higher prices at the checkout counter.
By Dan Aiello
From California Progress Report - Monday, Oct. 17, 2011
Coalition response...Federal biologists have explained that the increase in fish populations is the result of the weather conditions experienced this year throughout California. These same conditions cannot be duplicated by the water projects that deliver water for the growing of food and to fill the needs of 25 million Californians. Attempts to claim that it only takes "more water" to preserve the fish ignores the reality of weather patterns that grip our State, such as the recent drought years. Rejecting a water bond that would provide an improved infrastructure of storage and delivery does not guarantee "more water" for fish. It only continues the battle that currently paralyzes our water future.
From IndyBay Media - Monday, Oct. 17. 2011
Coalition response...The federal guidelines of 2009 and 2010 cited as "new and improved federal rules limiting diversions..." have been called "arbitrary and capricious" and "silly science" by a federal judge. These guidelines did not adhere to the National Environmental Policy Act that required the agencies to consider the impacts on humans. The guidelines are now undergoing a rewrite that hopefully will result in a fairness to all. Continuing to blame public water agencies for the results of deficient science is misleading.
From House Committee on Science, Space & Technology - Thursday, Oct. 13, 2011
Coalition response...One should never be surprised with the amount of grandstanding that goes on by elected officials. The attack on Julie McDonald and her time at the Department of Interior is a poor attempt to divert attention away from the facts at hand. Federal Judge Oliver Wanger, in a recent court decision against the Fish and Wildlife Service on proposed rules meant to protect fish said of an agency biologist, "(she) may be a very reasonable person and she may be a good scientist. She may be honest, but she has not been honest with this court... I find her testimony to be that of a zealot. And I'm not overstating the case. I'm not being histrionic. I'm not being dramatic." Wanger added, "The only inference that the court can draw is that it is an attempt to mislead and to deceive the court into accepting what is not only not the best science, it's not science."
From Press Democrat - Monday, Oct. 17, 2011
By John Fleck
From Inkstain - Monday, Oct. 17, 2011
By Tom Barnidge
From Contra Costa Times - Monday, Oct. 17, 2011
From Western Farm Press - Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011
By Susanne Rust
From California Watch - Tuesday, Oct. 18, 2011