Reduced Water Exports from the Delta?
March 17, 2008 | Posted by Thomas J. Graff in Bay Delta
Thomas J. Graff is Senior Counsel at EDF.
Must the Resources Agency and the Department of Water Resources consider a reduced Delta export alternative?
That’s just one of the issues that has now been set for argument April 2 before the CA Supreme Court in the case of “In re Bay Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings” (i.e. the CALFED EIR case).
Those of us who work the environmental side of things think it ought to be a no-brainer, not so much for the Court but for the agencies themselves. The salmon season is shot. The list of endangered species and the depth of their plight in the estuary are both proliferating. State and Federal water contractors south of the Delta are desperate for an isolated facility.
How can one take them and the agencies who deliver them water seriously when they continue to argue that reduced exports are not a viable alternative?
One Response
Comment from jerrymeral
March 18th, 2008 at 9:59 am
A fair trade for the Peripheral Canal would be reduced Delta exports. This is what SB 27 (Simitian) calls for. Now if the administration would just recognize the need for legislation, rather than just proceeding by themselves.
Jerry Meral
Leave a Reply
You must log in to post comments | Login | Register an account
User comments reflect the opinions of the responsible contributor only, and do not reflect the viewpoint of Environmental Defense Fund. We reserve the right to delete comments that may be considered offensive, illegal or inappropriate. We also reserve the right to delete duplicate comments, or comments that have no relationship to the original post.