From Redding Record Searchlight - Monday, Dec. 17, 2012
From Redding Record Searchlight - Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012
(The following is in response to the above articles.)
Coalition response...Governments, including schools, have benefited from Shasta Dam in the form of taxes it has generated to the local economy. Jobs have been created and even the environment has benefited not only at the local level but throughout the State. The study to raise the dam points out that these benefits will continue and even be enhanced.
Rejecting these future benefits is to reject the years of science and research that has gone into developing the proposal. More water in storage means improved conditions for Chinook salmon in dry or critical years as the cold water supply increases. More gravel augmentation for salmon in the upper Sacramento River is also included in the proposal. The survival rate for fish will be increased as a result of water management flexibility.
By Michael Fitzgerald
From Stockton Record - Sunday, Dec. 16, 2012
Coalition response...The author seizes the opportunity of the requirement that all suggestions from the public must be vetted to add some humor to the future of the Colorado River. Absent in his column are the benefits that this water supply provides to millions of people across seven states and the food produced by farmers who use the water for irrigation purposes. Much of the winter vegetables enjoyed by Californians and others come from the Imperial and Coachella valleys. These farmers carefully use the water that comes from the Colorado River to provide a supply of food that is affordable, healthy and reliable.
This food supply contributes to the overall economic benefit of American households. The average U.S. household spends approximately 6.2 percent of their total spending, or $5,945 per year ($2010 dollars), on food and non-alcoholic beverages. The weighted average spending on food and non-alcoholic beverages for other high-income countries around the world is estimated to be approximately 10.2 percent of total spending, or $9,765 annually. Based on these values, the relative difference between food and beverage spending in the U.S. and other high-income countries is $3,820 per household per year (http://www.farmwater.org/foodcoststudy.pdf). On a percentage basis, other high-income countries spend about 64 percent more on food and beverages compared to the U.S.
By Lois Henry
From Bakersfield Californian - Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012
From Imperial Valley Press - Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012
From Desert Sun - Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012
From Siskiyou Daily News - Friday, Dec. 14, 2012