By John Bass
From Delta National Park - Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011
Coalition response...The author should be writing that California farmers are 95.5 percent efficient in their use of water as they produce a reliable supply of safe and healthy food for the consumer. He narrows down the recent study by the Center of Irrigation Technology to two options---fallow farmland or increase the water supply. He then creates "the hard line of pro-ag reasoning must eventually lead to the unrestrained export of Delta water south, and a destroyed Delta ecosystem." This statement exhibits a lack of understanding of the current process that farm water interests are working through to get their water deliveries back to levels that they originally contracted for. Part of this ongoing effort is to prevent further harm to the Delta ecosystem. What is so wrong about securing a water supply that results in billions of dollars worth of ag produce, thousands of jobs and financial support for rural communities? Public water agencies have already spent $140 million toward this effort and they are being asked to commit another $100 million. They have been willing to do this in order to establish a reliable supply of water. By the way, the water these public water agencies receive does not originate in the Delta, it simply passes through it. If this water is not made available to 25 million Californians and farmland that produces a bountiful food supply, then it will end up in the ocean.
By Assemblyman Bill Berryhill
From Sacramento Bee - Friday, Nov. 18, 2011
Coalition response....Critics of efforts to secure California's water future increasingly rely on rhetoric to paint anyone not in agreement with them as villains. They claim that recipients of water that flows through the Delta simply want to take all the water and leave the Delta region "in the dust." Where are the facts behind these statements? Assemblyman Berryhill has fallen into this trap of repeating rhetoric that serves no purpose in resolving our State's water dilemma.
To the Assemblyman's credit, his call for people to sit down and work together toward a reliable water future is commendable. We need to remember that there are multiple interests involved in this issue and it will take each group to express a willingness to cooperatively work together.
By Barry Nelson
From NRDC - Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011
Coalition response...Arguing against the addition of the public water agencies to the MOA is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The MOA clearly answers the question of who remains in charge in the development of the BDCP---it is the lead agencies: Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Water Resources.
Preparation of a habitat conservation plan, which is the function of the BDCP planning efforts, is typically an applicant-driven process that also involves the applicant to pay for the HCP, which is ultimately subject to review and approval of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
Adding the public water agencies to permittee status for the BDCP follows an already-established practice. This happened previously in California in the development of the Colorado River HCP.
Again, the control that many fear has been bestowed upon the public water agencies does not exist because it would be contrary to law.
By Rick Dowd
From Eureka Times-Standard - Friday, Nov. 18, 2011
From ACWA - Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011
From Aquafornia - Friday, Nov. 18, 2011
From The Record - Friday, Nov. 18, 2011
From ACWA - Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011
By Dan Bacher
From IndyBay Media - Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011
By Steve LaMar, President, Irvine Ranch Water District
From Irvine Ranch Water District - Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011
By Alastair Bland
From Marin Independent Journal - Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011
From Siskiyou Daily News - Thursday, Nov. 17, 2011