Mar 06, 2018
Didn't have time yesterday but I wanted to comment more on Mark's post. I also sent a letter to the Chronicle in reply. These comments from the S.F. Chronicle's Editorial Board completely mislead readers, mixes stories, and contains very little factual content. The two water agencies named in this hit-piece are completely different water districts. They briefly use one water district to write a story about another, which is completely misleading.
The story would have you beleive there was one drainage agreement with two water districts. The agreement between the Obama Administration and Westlands is a seperate agreement. There is no other agreement that is "key" to the settlement with Westlands.
The story misleads the reader by reading that the irrigation of crops caused problems at Kesterson. In fact, the Federal Government decided to terminate the completion of the drainage facilities at the time and a Federal Court determined that environmental damage was from this lack of completion. The claim of no oversight is laughable. Obviously, the Editorial Board holds the same opinion on oversight as the California Bureacracy. Their issue with oversight is that it is not under the state's oversight. The Boards stance to nix the settlement is derived straight from their lack of understanding of how anything works. They are effectively telling all tax payers they will be on the hook for damage to farm ground and for future costs associated with drainage. Finally, their answer is to stop irrigating soils. Guess this is where we have to assume the Editorial Board members do not eat. While the words, "toxic" or "polluted" appear 11 times in this story, the only thing toxic and polluted is this story itself.
Wayne Western Jr.