Monday, August 13, 2012

News articles and links from August 13, 2012


From NY Times - Saturday, Aug. 11, 2012

Coalition response...The current proposal to construct the twin tunnels includes a second project: restoration of the Delta ecosystem that includes restoration of environmental habitat in the region. People's fears that the tunnels would "Kill the delta" or other claims that tunnels would drain the river ignore the facts about their operation. While operating plans are still being finalized, existing restrictions on diversions of water flowing through the Delta will remain. Diversions are subject to the type of water year (wet, normal or dry) that governs the amount of available water; plus the water volume included in existing supply contracts.

California water law also states that existing water rights cannot be negatively impacted by new projects.

The tunnels would also provide a valuable service of separating water designated for 25 million Californians and family farmers who provide an affordable and healthy supply of food that is marketed around the world, including readers of the New York Times, from water that is dedicated to fish and the Delta ecosystem. 

(The following article was previously published in the Sacramento Bee on Sunday, Aug. 5, 2012.)
By Stuart Leavenworth
From Modesto Bee - Saturday, Aug. 11, 2012

Coalition response...The author references selected changes in California since 1982 when voters rejected a proposal to construct a canal capable of transporting water at a rate of 22,000 cfs. But the author fails to mention that the current plan calls for a rate of only 9,000 cfs. The current version also calls for restoration of the Delta's ecosystem, as directed by the Legislature in 2009.

Some farmers in the Delta are expressing a concern for their water rights if the current proposal moves to completion, according to the author. It is important to remember that California's water code does not allow a project to negatively impact existing water rights.

The debate will continue regarding the current proposal and it is important that facts and science, not rhetoric, direct the conversation.

From Tracy Press - Friday, Aug. 10, 2012

Coalition response...The rationale behind this editorial would have us all locking the doors to our homes and never venturing outside. A distrust of contract law that governs how much water moving through the Delta could be diverted and a distrust of an elected government to arbitrarily change operating procedures for the proposed tunnels leaves no room for reasonable discussion. Such thinking will hold California back from securing a reliable water future.


From Modesto Bee - Sunday, Aug. 12, 2012

By Pat Mulroy
From Las Vegas Sun - Sunday, Aug. 12, 2012

By Wil Hunter
From Merced Sun-Star - Friday, Aug. 10, 2012

From Mountain Democrat - Friday, Aug. 10, 2012


By Dan Morain
From Sacramento Bee - Sunday, Aug. 12, 2012

From Santa Cruz Sentinel - Saturday, Aug. 11, 2012
From San Jose Mercury News -  Saturday, Aug. 11, 2012
From Eureka Times Standard - Saturday, Aug. 11, 2012


Press Release 
From Rep. Denham  - Monday, Aug. 13, 2012 

By Damien M. Schiff
From Sacramento Bee - Sunday, Aug. 12, 2012

From Vallejo Times-Herald - Sunday, Aug. 12, 2012

By Jeffrey Kightlinger
From Pasadena Star-News - Sunday, Aug. 12, 2012

From Bakersfield Californian - Sunday, Aug. 12, 2012


From Modesto Bee - Friday, Aug. 10, 2012
From North County Times - Friday, Aug. 10, 2012
From Redding Record Searchlight - Friday, Aug. 10, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment