By Monty Schmitt
From NRDC - Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012
Coalition response... By his own admission, the author acknowledges that work has yet to be done to provide a clear pathway to the Delta and it is the responsibility of the state and federal fishery agencies to make a determination as to when conditions are suitable. Those agencies have not made that determination and ramping up the introduction of salmon will only cause the unnecessary loss of salmon. This is a surprising recommendation by an individual whose organization was part of the lawsuit.
Also, actions taken during the past years as part of the Restoration Program have had negative impacts on some farmers along the San Joaquin River. Flows sent down the river have caused seepage onto nearby land and flooded crops. Continued efforts in the program must take this impact into consideration. The timing of future water surges down the river must be managed in a way to avoid these negative consequences. While the water management goal actions are welcome, it is encouraging that during the last two years certain aspects of the water management goal actions have resulted in some mitigation of the impacts and the wet conditions have helped, but the author is just plain wrong in his assertion that there has been a net water supply benefit to farmers who gave up water to the restoration program.
From SF Chronicle - Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012
From The Record - Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012
By David Zetland
From Aguanomics - Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012
From Siskiyou Daily News - Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012
From Pasadena Star-News - Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012
From Record Searchlight - Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012
By Lois Henry
From Bakersfield Californian - Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012
From Rep. Costa - Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2012
From NY Times - Thursday, Feb. 9, 2012