That is an extraordinary claim.
The Los Angeles Times, Wednesday, August 26, 2009
OP-ED: WINNING THE WATER WAR
by Timothy F. Brick
A generation ago, Southern California water managers thought they had the solution for dealing with the hub of the state's water system -- the magnificent Northern California estuary known as the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. They wanted to build a canal from the delta to the existing aqueduct system that sustains San Joaquin Valley agriculture and Southern California.
They were wrong. And now we finally have the chance to do it right.
. . .
For the delta, chances like this don't come along very often. We've never seen an entire package like this that advances water policy and makes the responsible plumbing changes. We're at the brink of a sustainable water future for California -- if we seize the moment.
Will those of you who know much more about this issue than me please follow the link, read the full text, and leave a comment. Is Mr. Brick right? If not, why not? How should Green activists respond to this challenge?
5 comments:
One issue that Fairfield has that most people aren’t aware of is the use of PVC pipe to transport water, including drinking water.
One problem with PVC revolves around the use of Chloramines to clean the water. The use of Chloramines interacts with PVC and can actually result in lead leaching from brass fittings. This is highly toxic and can threaten the health of you and your family.
There are also carbon implications in the use of PVC. PVC is far less efficient than several green alternatives, owing to the necessary thickness of the pipe, which reduces the internal diameter, and requires greater energy expenditure to transport water. Over a 50-year lifetime, this difference can mean millions of dollars.
At the Clean Water Pipe Council, we care about your drinking water and how it gets to you, check us out at http://www.cleanwaterpipecouncil.org/ and contact us for more info, we’d be glad to provide it! Also, we’re on Facebook, looks us up at http://bit.ly/cwpcfacebook
Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters recently said environmentalists sacrificed the Delta to stop the earlier peripheral canal. He's right. You can't restore the Delta as long as you're moving millions of acre feet of water through it to the south. You must have an alternative conveyance. Being done 20 years later under stricter environmental oversight, the canal can be designed to be a key feature in the restoration of the Delta.
Here's some insight
http://www.counterpunch.com/gray08272009.html
By the time I got there, the LA Times was not accepting new comments.
But, I will offer this. Brick is 100% right, but we should not celebrate this because he was also so vague. The placement of the devil in the details is very apt and the bill supported by Democrat Senate President Steinberg is not going to get us anything.
I noted that there were zero comments to read when I went to the Times link. Is no one interested? In which case, Steinberg can sneak anything he wants through.
I agree with Wes that the plan is vague as to details but considering that the PLANS, of which there are 5 under consideration, are drafts only they will be dicussed until all the details and considerations are hammered out.
I think that the goals set are comprehensive and admirable making the best of the present situation. If all the cities could practice the water conservation that my city, Long Beach, does and then some what more, that would mitigate the overpopulation of aris lands Also, agrabusinesses need to be regulated much more then they are now.
Post a Comment