By Peter Gleick
From SF Chronicle – Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Coalition response...This report did use “real data” but it was used in such a way to hide the effects felt by those impacted by water delivery restrictions. From Page 59 of the report (yes, I read more than just the Executive Summary) it states: “...job losses were concentrated in sectors not related to agriculture. In fact, the proportion of agricultural jobs has either remained stable or increased in areas facing the greatest reductions in federal and state water deliveries. This finding directly contradicts claims that water shortages caused agricultural job losses.” The report conveniently uses employment numbers for multiple years and fails to look solely at those years when Westside communities were most affected by the water cuts. Compare these unemployment numbers from EDD with water delivery reductions at the graph found at www.farmwater.org/Page-2.html and you’ll receive a truthful look at the unemployment situation.
Wait a minute, Peter, with one breath you’re saying, “The pain in the Central Valley is real” and then saying but the cause is not water shortages.” Are you saying there was no pain caused by the water shortages? What about the people who lost their jobs because of the water shortages as documented by economists Michael and Howitt, who you quote in your report. To say there was pain in the Central Valley but not as a result of water shortages is a contradiction with your own report.
This report does a disservice to individuals who are seeking the truth.
From YouTube – Thursday, June 30, 2011
By Liz Bowen
From Siskiyou Daily News – Wednesday, June 29, 2011
By David Sunding
From Scribd – Monday, June 27, 2011