Monday, May 20, 2013

News articles and links from May 20, 2013


From: Dan Casamajor, Chico Enterprise-Record

From: Elizabeth Devereaux, Chico Enterprise-Record

(The following comment is posted in response to the above two letters.) 

Coalition response...  

Water transfers are not allowed to take place without a rigorous review of potential impacts on area-of-origin water users, groundwater, environmental resources and more. These regulations require that no negative impacts may result from proposed transfers. Individuals and organizations that insist any transfer will deplete local water supplies should be aware that safeguards are already in place to address their concerns. Public participation in California water policy is important. Communication with local irrigation and water districts is an important first step because locally elected boards have the responsibility to oversee the decisions that affect their constituents. Short-term water transfers have proven time and time again to provide benefits to both buyers and sellers by moving water from areas of abundance to areas of need and infusing outside capital into local areas to upgrade and maintain infrastructure without raising local taxes or water costs.  

From: Heather Hacking, Chico Enterprise-Record

Coalition response...

Proposing that a regional body assume control over locally elected irrigation and water districts may not be a good idea. The board members that make decisions on how best to manage their district have the interests of their constituents to consider. Local accountability is important. That means that the decisions made by an irrigation or water district may not be popular with every voter when they're made to benefit the overall operation of the district. Delegating that responsibility to a regional authority means that local voters could lose their voice on important local issues.


From: Aviva Shen, ClimateProgress

Coalition response...   

There is a reason dry land farming has been declining in popularity, as the article states. It's just not as productive. According to a 2001 study by Peralta and Stockle, irrigation on land allows it to be twice as productive. Modern irrigation techniques, such as those widely used in California, have almost immensely increased crop production on the same amount of applied water as was used over 40 years ago. At a time when millions of people worldwide are entering middle income brackets and becoming larger food consumers, does it make sense to adopt old, less productive practices when they could hasten a global food shortage?  

Bay Delta Conservation Plan

From: Paul Helliker, Contra Costa Times

From: Jerry Meral, The Record

From: William Stelle Jr., Sacramento Bee

From: Charles Milor, Fresno Bee

From: John Laird, Sacramento Bee

From: C.J. Jawahar, Sacramento Bee

From: Burt Wilson, Sacramento Bee

Water Supply

From: Editorial, Modesto Bee


From: Vacaville Reporter

Salton Sea

From: Lynn Lieu, The Desert Sun


From: George J. Janczyn, GrokSurf's San Diego


From: Fresno Bee

No comments:

Post a Comment