Water supply
Story
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.
Editorial
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.
Commentary
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.
WATER SUPPLY
Story
From Redding Record Searchlight - Wednesday, Sept. 12,
2012
Story
From Merced Sun-Star - Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012
Story
From Reuters - Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2012
Story
From ACWA - Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012
Press release
From DWR - Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012
DELTA
Story
From San Jose Mercury News - Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2012
Letter
From Oakland Tribune - Monday, Sept. 10, 2012
Story
From Eureka Times-Standard - Wednesday, Sept. 12,
2012
No comments:
Post a Comment