Water supply
Letter
From Redding Record Searchlight - Monday, Dec. 17,
2012
Letter
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.
Column
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.
WATER SUPPLY
Column
By Lois Henry
From Bakersfield Californian - Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012
Story
From Imperial Valley Press - Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012
Story
From Desert Sun - Saturday, Dec. 15, 2012
Story
From Siskiyou Daily News - Friday, Dec. 14, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment