From Porterville Recorder - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
Coalition response...Nearly 30 years after a University of California, Cooperative Extension study concluded that farmers are not wasting water a new study arrived at similar conclusions. A major finding of the current study contradicts a popular claim that increased conservation on the farm could result in millions of acre-feet of water available for other uses.
The 1982 report has been updated by researchers at The Center for Irrigation Technology at California State University, Fresno. The updated study was released supporting many of the same conclusions.
The new study shows that only 1.3 percent of existing supplies, or about 330,000 acre-feet of water could be conserved on farms if farmers changed their irrigation practices or shifted to different crops.
Changes in irrigation practices and crop patterns also have the potential to cause negative impacts. Changing from furrow to drip irrigation can mean less water to replenish aquifers, which many rural communities rely on for domestic water supplies.
The new study also shows that farmers have been making excellent decisions on how to manage the water they use to efficiently grow food and fiber, create jobs and significantly contribute to California's economy.
By Doug Obegi
From NRDC - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
By Dan Bacher
From IndyBay Media - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
(The following response is posted to the above two articles.)
Coalition response....Is it wrong to sign a contract and then expect it to be fulfilled? Most people realize that they are committing themselves to the conditions of a contract when they affix their name to it and they plan for the future according to those conditions. In the case of farmers receiving water that flows through the Delta, seeds are planted and workers are hired to nurture a crop to harvest. Once harvested, the crop may move in several different channels that ultimately end up with the consumer. During this process the lives of millions of people are touched. Is this wrong?
BDCP critics seem to focus on a single train of thought---halting water deliveries and keeping the water flowing through the Delta to the ocean. Yet, those who have worked for years in making BDCP a reality have had a multi-pronged approach that includes a return to contracted deliveries of water in a manner that does not harm the Delta. Ecosystem benefits to the Delta are an important part of the BDCP. Is this wrong?
Individuals who brush aside the resulting benefits to these water deliveries cry out against the BDCP and offer no alternative, other than a one-sided approach to California's water issues that serves no one but themselves. Their alternative ignores the lives of millions of people who rely on a food supply that is produced from these water deliveries.
From Capital Press - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
From SWC - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
By By Mark Biddlecomb
From CalRice - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
By Mark Grossi
From Fresno Bee Hive - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
QUANTIFICATION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
From IV Press - Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011
From Boston Globe - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
From Contra Costa Times - Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011
From Fresno Bee - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
From Modesto Bee - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
From The Record - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
From Record Searchlight - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
From Union-Tribune - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011
From KCRA-TV - Monday, Nov. 21, 2011