 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Feedback
Dear Estuary,
Certain statements in the article "CALFED Quarterbacks" [in the last issue of ESTUARY, which discussed now-pending CALFED authorization and funding legislation] were erroneous, incomplete and/or misleading. First, [the article] states that the Westlands Water District would be the primary beneficiary of the 70% [water] supply guarantee. It is more accurate to say the farmers of the Westlands Water District would be benefited….and that the primary beneficiaries would be California and United States consumers of food and fiber produced by [these] farmers. Westlands provides a convenient media target….but of all California farming regions, the Westlands-area farmers have been most severely impacted by CVPIA and CALFED actions that have reduced agricultural water supplies.
Second, [the article] states that 80% of the state’s water goes to farms. It is time this statistic, which has received wide circulation for years, is debunked. The correct statement is that, in an average year, 42.5% [of California’s water use] is agricultural; 46.5% is environmental; and 11% is urban. This data is from Bulletin 160-98,the California Water Plan Executive Summary. Finally, the article makes it seem as if [Senator Feinstein’s authorization bill] is simply an attempt to pre-authorize massive water projects. In reality, it is an attempt to achieve the difficult political goal of keeping all political elements engaged and supportive of CALFED by assuring that all the CALFED goals (not just the easy and cheap ones….like the environmental restoration projects with short implementation and low funding needs relative to water supply and water quality improvements….) are achieved. Notwithstanding these criticisms, I normally find your publication meets its goal of providing accurate and balanced information on Bay-Delta issues.
Robert Kunde, Assistant Engineer-Manager
Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District
Dear Estuary,
I read the report on "Moonscape Nestings" in the October 2001 issue with considerable interest. It was one of the more amazing bits of fantasy I've read in a long time. There is nothing "accidental" about the unusual number of dry ponds this year, and it has very little to do with rainfall. Instead, the dry ponds are a direct result of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service asking us to stop moving water through the ponds to avoid flooding snowy plover nests that had crept down the sides of the levees. We agreed to these measures even though they have had and will have a detrimental effect on our salt-making operations and will make efforts to return the ponds to normal patterns far more difficult. Managing salt pond habitat is extremely complex, and decisions to promote the needs of one species often conflict with the needs of other species, especially when endangered species considerations seem to trump all others. That seems to be a more interesting, real-world story than the superficial one that was published in Estuary.
Lori Johnson
Cargill
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project