From Fresno Bee - Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012
Coalition response...The successful water bank operated by Marvin Meyers illustrates part of the solution to a secure water future for our state. Meyers uses a combination of sources to maintain his banking operation---conservation, run-off and purchased water. It is these same sources and more, such as additional storage and an improved delivery system, that will work together in providing a reliable supply of water for future generations.
From Sonoma News - Monday, Sept. 10, 2012
Coalition response...Thirty years ago the proposal was focused on water supply while the current BDCP proposal adds Delta restoration efforts to the plan; it is not the same project as 30 years ago. BDCP responds to the legislative mandate that both water supply reliability and Delta ecosystem restoration be equally addressed. Critics of the BDCP continue to mislead the public by linking BCDP to a 30-year-old proposal. The "paper water" referred to in the Sept. 5 article fails to recognize that California's water resources are recycled again and again. Water use permits are issued by the State for specific times and places of use. It is normal for the same water to be used multiple times as it travels through the system. Trying to make the case that somehow the State has irresponsibly issued permits for water that doesn't exist is at best misleading. As an example, a portion of the water delivered to farms in the Sacramento Valley from the CVP will be returned to the Sacramento River and reused by other public water agencies and individuals further downstream. In some instances, this water is reused up to nine times. These critics also attempt to influence public opinion by claiming that water flowing through the Delta is just exported to corporate farmers and that two-thirds of the water delivered accounts for just 0.5 percent of California's economy. Stop and think about this for a moment and about who benefits from the water used to grow food. A low percentage means that food costs are low. That translates into consumers having to spend less of their disposable income on food. In fact, American families spend just 6.2 percent of their disposable income on food and non-alcoholic beverages compared to 10.2 percent for families in 28 other high-income countries. If the percentages were the same we would have to spend an additional $3,820 per year on average for food at the grocery store. Who thinks THAT is a good idea? Finally, claims about subsidized water are also widely voiced without clarification. The only subsidy related to water deliveries is the congressional decision in 1935 when building the Central Valley Project to only waive the interest charge on construction costs that must be repaid by farmers. That decision was based on the realization of the abundance of food that would be produced by that water. (See corresponding result above.) There is no subsidy in the current BDCP proposals. Water users will pay all costs associated with the water they receive.
By Mark Baldassare, PPIC
From PPIC - Monday, Sept. 10, 2012
Coalition response...The author is correct in stating "Managing water has always been difficult." He is also correct in listing "marketing, 'banking' water underground and reusing highly treated wastewater" as some of the tools to solve California's water problems. Other tools not listed include conservation, additional water storage and an improved water delivery system. It will take all of these tools to provide a secure water future for our state.
From Redding Record Searchlight - Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012
From Merced Sun-Star - Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012
From Reuters - Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012
From ACWA - Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012
From DWR - Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012
From San Jose Mercury News - Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012
From Oakland Tribune - Monday, Sept. 10, 2012
From Eureka Times-Standard - Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012