Wednesday, December 12, 2012

News articles and links from December 12, 2012


Water supply

Story
From LA Times - Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012

Coalition response...Reality -- a place seemingly absent from this report -- tells us that California receives far more water than it can use, at least for the foreseeable future. Unlike the other western states, our supplies are self-contained and generated almost entirely within our borders. A little bit comes in from Oregon, but we don't use it much; and much more flows past us in the Colorado River which we've chosen to tap into in a big way. But far more water falls in the unpopulated forests and meadows that cover the top half of the state and most of it flows into the ocean from the North Coast and through the Golden Gate, unused.  

Surely those huge volumes of natural water supply would have to be counted into the equation if there is any validity at all to the concept of a "water footprint."

But in fact, there is no validity to the concept. The very notion of a "footprint" is borrowed from the fallacious rhetoric of environmental extremism. It is intended to define a negative impact. But what does the Pacific Institute count as part of our footprint? Evapotranspiration!!! --- a natural process that is simply a form of recycling that is essential for the survival of all life on the planet. Even worse, only counted as bad is the evapotranspiration that occurs from crops -- not at all from forests.  

The point is that if we take a realistic look, we will see instantly that the immeasurably vast quantities of water that leave California as runoff or water vapor makes us a net exporter of water by an immense degree. And that means we don't have to begin getting into the silly business of trying to estimate how much water we import in apples from Oregon vs. how much we ship out in lettuce from the Imperial Valley.

WATER SUPPLY

Story
From Imperial Valley Press - Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2012

Story
From Modesto Bee - Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012

Blog
By Mark Grossi
From fresnobeehive - Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012

Story
From Redding Record Searchlight - Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012

DELTA

Story
From Aquafornia - Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2012

PEOPLE

Story
From Desert Sun - Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

News articles and links from December 11, 2012


Water supply

Story
From Bloomberg Businessweek - Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012

Coalition response...This study has several glaring weaknesses in its attempt to define the value of California water. The most glaring is its failure to include the largest share of California's water footprint...water that is dedicated for environmental purposes. This segment of water accounts for 48% of California's total developed water supply. Instead, the report only focuses on the 41% of water that is used to grow food and the remaining 11% that goes to homes and businesses.

Another major weakness is the attempt to place a dollar-and-cent value on the water used in our state without considering the social value. The study repeatedly singles out the water used to produce livestock feed.  Consumer choices include meat and dairy products that most people find a valuable part of a balanced diet. It takes feed like alfalfa, hay and corn to produce meat, ice cream and cheese. These same consumers benefit from the California-grown farm products by paying less at the grocery store than their counterparts in 28 other high-income countries. Americans pay just 6.2% of their disposable income on food and non-alcoholic beverages each year. Those in other high-income countries pay 10.2%, which at the same rate would cost Americans $3,820 more each year (in 2010 dollars) to feed their families (http://www.farmwater.org/foodcoststudy.pdf ).

Also absent in the study are those additional values derived from water used on California farms. Jobs are provided for millions of employees both on the farm and through marketing channels, such as trucking, processing, service and export terminal jobs, with a total economic impact of $112 billion, according to the UC Davis Ag Issues Center. Don't forget that taxes are also generated from these farms that help support local schools and other government activities.

California is the seventh largest economy in the world and any effort designed to shift water use based on economic value is misleading. After all, most Californians would agree that the availability of fresh California-grown fruits, vegetables, meat and dairy products far outweigh the taste and nutrition of a "high-value" product such as a shoe or a computer. Readers of this report should realize the value they currently have from the food and fiber grown on our farms and not be fooled into comparing food with other consumer products.

Groundwater

Blog
By Steve Shimek
From The Huffington Post - Monday, Dec. 10, 2012

Coalition response...A joint effort by stakeholders in 2004 resulted in the establishment of 50 monitoring stations along the Central Coast to gather information regarding groundwater. Some locations remain a concern and others have shown marked improvement in the years since the monitoring commenced. Some groups, such as The Otter Project, were a part of this effort in the beginning but rejected the results that proved farmers are working to protect groundwater.

Claims that sea otters have died and attempts to connect them to agricultural fertilizers are void of any scientific assessment. It is unfortunate that individuals are allowed to make statements that serve no purpose other than to inflame emotions.

Individuals who are sincerely interested in the Central Coast Water Board's efforts to establish a groundwater monitoring program should closely look at the ongoing efforts of local farmers. During the past 10-20 years farmers have improved their management practices that have resulted in less fertilizers and sprays applied to their fields. The result has been a healthy food supply for all of us. 

Central Coast farmers proposed a program for the Conditional Ag Order that incentivized farmers to adopt new techniques and adopt improvements on their farms, along with an audit and verification process for each farm during the term of the Order. This proposal was summarily dismissed in favor of an onerous regulation that does nothing more than require monitoring and reporting, with no incentives for future investments.

WATER SUPPLY

Blog
By John Fleck
From Inkstain - Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012

Blog
By David Guy
From Water-Food-Environment - Monday, Dec. 10, 2012

(This column was previously published in the LA Times.)
Column
By George Skleton
From Modesto Bee - Monday, Dec. 10, 2012

DELTA

Story
From Bilingual Weekly - Tuesday, Dec. 11, 2012

Story
From SF Chronicle - Monday, Dec. 10, 2012

Monday, December 10, 2012

News articles and links from December 10, 2012


Water supply

Story
From Fresno Bee - Saturday, Dec. 8, 2012

Coalition response...The replacement of Sack Dam was originally scheduled to begin Jan. 1, 2013, and it is now delayed. However, redesigning Sack Dam is not the sole cause or even a major reason for a delayed restoration program. Securing adequate funding for the program has been elusive and ESA rules and permits necessary for the construction projects have not been made public for input. Much more work needs to be done before the goals of the restoration program are achieved.

Local water districts and farmers are working together voluntarily and seeking solutions to address the subsidence issue. These groups have already funded and conducted a study that has provided them with valuable information. Regardless of the restoration program, they are committed to this effort for the benefit of local water users and to protect groundwater resources into the future.

WATER SUPPLY

Column
By George Skelton
From LA Times - Sunday, Dec. 9, 2012

Story
From Salinas Californian - Friday, Dec. 7, 2012

Press release
From USBR - Friday, Dec. 7, 2012

Radio story
From KPBS - Friday, Dec. 7,2012

Story
From Siskiyou Daily News - Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012

WATER QUALITY

Story
From Salinas Californian - Friday, Dec. 7, 2012

Friday, December 7, 2012

News articles and links from December 7, 2012


Delta

Press release
From Restore the Delta - Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012

Coalition response...BDCP - A 21st Century Strategy was developed by comparing the 1982 proposal with current BDCP efforts and applying updated science and methodologies. Part of that updated science counters the claim by some who continue to argue that fish habitat is dependent solely on increased freshwater flows. Current studies have proven that multiple factors impact the habitat needed by fish, such as the release of ammonia from wastewater discharges into the Sacramento River.  

New regulatory guidelines, including the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, didn't even exist in 1982 and today it is an important part of the BDCP process. Also, the 1982 proposal focused only on salmon and striped bass while current BDCP efforts identify 214 biological goals and objectives for the Delta ecosystem and native fish and wildlife species, which total 57.

It is imperative that ongoing discussions related to the Delta and California's water issues include facts and not rhetoric. Otherwise, all of California will suffer.


WATER SUPPLY

Story
From Chico Enterprise-Record - Friday, Dec. 7, 2012
From Marysville Appeal-Democrat - Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012

Audio report
From Western Farm Press - Friday, Dec. 7, 2012

Story
From Marysville Appeal-Democrat - Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012

Story
From ACWA - Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012

Story
From Imperial Valley Press - Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012

FISHERIES

Blog
By Damien M. Schiff
From Pacific Legal Foundation - Friday, Dec. 7, 2012

Thursday, December 6, 2012

News articles and links from December 6, 2012


WATER SUPPLY

Report
From DWR - Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012

Report
From Aquafornia - Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012

Story
From ACWA - Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012

DELTA

Story
From Stockton Record - Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012

Wednesday, December 5, 2012

News articles and links from December 5, 2012


Fisheries

Column
By Michael Fitzgerald
From Stockton Record - Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012

Coalition response...Those "other bad conditions" the author doesn't identify as reasons for low salmon population numbers in recent years are important and should be discussed. According to the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, poor ocean conditions---warm water temperatures and declining food supply---is the leading cause for the dwindling salmon population. There is also the huge problem of predatory fish that have all but replaced some of the Delta's native species (www.farmwater.org/centrarchids.pdf). The percentage of predators in the Delta has more than doubled in the last 30 years while the percentage of native species over the same period has declined by 75 percent.  The commercial salmon industry also routinely takes 50 to 80 percent of the returning adult salmon before they ever have a chance to reproduce (www.farmwater.org/salmonindex.pdf).

Individuals and groups that continue to point to water exports as the primary cause for the population decline are simply wrong. We won't begin to fix the state's ecosystem and water supply challenges until there is open and honest discussion about all of the contributing factors.

WATER SUPPLY

Story

Story
From Western Farm Press - Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012

Story
From Modesto Bee - Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012

WATER QUALITY

Story
From Sacramento Business Journal - Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012

DELTA

Story
From Union Democrat - Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012

Blog
By Alex Breitler
From esanjoaquin - Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012

COURTS

Story
From Fresno Bee - Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012
From Modesto Bee - Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012
From Sacramento Bee - Wednesday, Dec. 5, 2012

Story
From NY Times - Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

News articles and links from December 4, 2012


Water supply

Editorial
From Chico Enterprise-Record - Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012

Coalition response...It is always important to remain vigilant over existing water rights. Safeguards have been put into the State Constitution and the California Water Code in recent decades that have strengthened these rights. The law clearly states that existing water rights cannot be negatively impacted by new water projects. Water transfers are allowed only when certain requirements are met, such as the agreement between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Also, it must be demonstrated that the proposed transfer will not harm existing water users in the area of origin and local environmental and human impacts are minimal.

Rivers

Editorial
From Stockton Record - Monday, Dec. 3, 2012

Coalition response...People may be exuberant over the reintroduction of salmon into the San Joaquin River but they must realize that this effort comes with a price. When the restoration plan was drafted, thousands of farmers gave up a portion of their water for a promise that their water would be restored. They are still waiting for the assurances that their water is not lost forever. Farmers along the river have experienced flooding in their fields as experimental flows have increased the amount of water sent down the river. A loss of water supply and flooding of fields mean a reduced food supply produced by California farmers. Consumers will likely feel the financial impact of higher food prices caused by the restoration efforts unless these impacts are resolved as the law requires. 

WATER SUPPLY

Story
From USA Today - Tuesday, Dec. 4, 2012
From Fresno Bee - Monday, Dec. 3, 2012

Story
From Oroville Mercury-Register - Monday, Dec. 3, 2012

Story
From Capital Press - Monday, Dec. 3, 2012

Opinion
By Steve Knell
From Modesto Bee - Monday, Dec. 3, 2012

DELTA

Story
From ACWA - Monday, Dec. 3, 2012