Farm Water News: News articles and links from Oct. 31, 2011

(The following response is posted to the above articles.)   Coalition response...The BDCP memorandum of agreement is misunderstood by those raising objections to the inclusion of the public water agencies' new role. The public water agencies are not granted a controlling role in the process. That role remains with the Federal Lead Agencies---Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Water Resources.

Preparation of a habitat conservation plan, which is the function of the BDCP planning efforts, is typically an applicant-driven process that also involves the applicant to pay for the HCP, which is ultimately subject to review and approval of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The public water agencies have already paid $140 million and are expected to add another $100 million to that total to complete the BDCP.

Adding the public water agencies to permittee status for the BDCP follows an already-established practice. This happened previously in California in the development of the Colorado River HCP.

Again, the control that many fear has been bestowed upon the public water agencies does not exist because it would be contrary to law.

WATER SUPPLY

Massive California farm-to-city water deal snared in litigation

Story

From LA Times - Saturday, Oct. 29, 2011

From Western Farm Press - Monday, Oct. 31, 2011

Modesto Irrigation District water deal stirs up debate

Story

From Modesto Bee - Saturday, Oct. 29, 2011

DELTA

Supreme Court declines to hear farmers' challenge to delta smelt protections

Blog