Wednesday, September 5, 2012

News articles and links from September 5, 2012


By Patricia McBroom
From The California Spigot - Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012

Coalition response...Resources Secretary Jerry Meral has repeatedly stated that all interests will be heard in the development process of the BDCP. During the July announcement by Gov. Brown and U.S. Interior Secretary Salazar, a blueprint for moving forward included the establishment of a new Stakeholder Council that will include representatives from local government agencies within the Delta, fishing organizations, hunting organizations and more. The  "State and Federal Principals Joint Recommendations Regarding Key Elements of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan" would be a worthwhile read for anyone interested in the BDCP process.

By Dan Bacher
From IndyBay Media - Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2012

Coalition response...The claim that the Kern Water Bank was "developed with state money and taxpayer approved bonds" is incorrect. The Kern Water Bank property was originally acquired by the California Department of Water Resources through the use of funds provided by the 29 water districts that participate in the State Water Project. In 1996 the Kern County Water Agency relinquished 45,000 acre-feet of its contracted right to State Water Project supplies in exchange for the acquisition of the Kern Fan Element Property from the California Department of Water Resources. Now known as the Kern Water Bank and administered by the Kern Water Bank Authority, about 1.2 million-acre-feet of water can be stored through percolation into the aquifer. More than $65 million has been invested since the 1996 transaction to make the Kern Water Bank a success to the people of California and the environment without the use of taxpayer money.

By Barry Nelson
From NRDC - Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2012

Coalition response...The author is focused on exports of water that flows through the Delta as the sole cause of ecosystem problems in the Delta. He applies a recent EPA document to exports but fails to make that same application to other factors, such as invasive species (90+% of aquatic species), loss of 90+% of historic habitat, water quality, discharge of tons of ammonia each day into the waters, exploding predator fish populations and adverse ocean conditions (temperature and food supply) which all pose threats to the salmon population. The most recent report from the National Academy of Sciences clearly explained that to focus on one factor will not solve the ills of the Delta. The Academy endorses the comprehensive planning approach the BDCP is undertaking.

Biologists, researchers and scientists have worked for years in developing the BDCP and the author attempts to discount their efforts with his reasoning. However, he is correct in stating that BDCP "must incorporate the best available science about the needs of the ecosystem and its fisheries." A thorough review of the BDCP material reveals that is exactly what is happening.

From Central Valley Business Times - Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2012

Coalition response...It is important to remember that the co-equal goals mandated by the legislature are a reliable water supply and a restored Delta ecosystem. All of California will benefit from the achievement of these two goals and not just a select group. That is why ecosystem and project construction costs are divided among the groups that benefit. When Shasta Dam and Oroville Dam were built there were recognized benefits that include flood protection, water supply and recreation. The costs were apportioned according to the benefits.  


From Ag Alert - Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012


By Mark Grossi
From Fresno Beehive - Tuesday, Sept. 4, 2012


By Stephen R. Miller
From Land Use Prof Blog - Wednesday, Sept. 5, 2012
By Marion Ashley
From Riverside Press-Enterprise - Sunday, Sept. 2, 2012

No comments:

Post a Comment