Contents

5/8/12

A river runs through it - State moves toward construction of Susitna-Watana dam

http://www.anchoragepress.com/news/state-moves-toward-construction-of-susitna-watana-dam/article_0ccc9a84-9008-11e1-9687-001a4bcf887a.html

4/25/14

4/24/12

http://crag.org/2012/03/29/protests-filed-to-protect-or-spring-water-from-nestle/

Protests Filed to Protect Oregon Spring Water from Nestlé

4/16/12

Frackers Outbid Farmers for Water in Colorado.

http://www.alternet.org/story/154890/frackers_outbid_farmers_for_water_in_colorado_drought?akid=8583.238038.O2Xq57&rd=1&t=8

3/15/12

http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/842602094.shtml

Implementing federal water protection mandates in Alaska has emerged as battlefield for environmental groups, resource developers

3/14/12

3/13/12

Gorbachev to World Water Forum: Global river accord, curbing waste can help solve water crisis, avert conflicts

12 March 2012/Marseille: The world must urgently respond to the global water crisis to prevent conflicts, ensure fair access to this life-giving resource, and reduce unsustainable use of water and other natural resources to protect the planet, Green Cross International Founder Mikhail Gorbachev said during his address to today’s high-level opening of the 6th World Water Forum.

President Gorbachev, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said there must be a political, economic and social shift in the way we deal with water, otherwise the world will encounter devastating political and humanitarian consequences.

“Water is at the heart of our economies, our societies, our futures,” “Water is the basis for all development and its strategic importance has demonstrated it can serve as a vehicle for peace and also tension. The risk of competition between regions and countries may only increase if we do not find a way to protect and share water.”

“On our planet Earth we do have water, but accessible resources of fresh water are limited, and water use for human needs keeps rising. Continuation of water consumption at 20th century rates is no longer possible,” President Gorbachev told the World Water Forum, being held in Marseille, France. “At the same time, millions of people die in poorer countries as a result of using untreated water. At Green Cross, we deploy our efforts in the prevention of conflicts related to access to water resources or resulting from their use as an instrument of pressure or diktat.”

Some 800 million people have no access to safe-drinking water, and 2.5 billion lack basic sanitation services. Water shortages and pollution cause major public health problems, curb development and harm ecosystems. More children die from diarrhoea caused by dirty water and lack of sanitation than malaria, measles, and HIV/AIDS combined. In North America and Japan, people use an average of 350 litres of water a day, and Europeans consume 200 litres daily, compared to people in Sub-Saharan Africa, who on average use 10-20 litres.

If well used and managed, enough water exists on the planet for everyone, President Gorbachev said.  Yet this finite resource is not equally distributed nor adequately conserved. Poor governance to manage water gives rise to potential conflicts over its control. And despite access to water and sanitation being declared a human right by the United Nations in 2010, many governments are not doing enough to ensure their people are able to realize these fundamental needs.

“Major water projects, both national and international, could become one of the engines in a qualitatively new stage of the development of global economy,” President Gorbachev said.

President Gorbachev also said governments must ratify the 1997 United Nations Watercourses Convention, the only global legal framework to govern and manage the world’s 276 cross-border watercourses. Thirty-five countries must ratify it for it to come into force. So far, 24 countries have done so, including most recently Burkina Faso, Morocco and France. “A global legal instrument would help ensure equitable and sustainable management of international watercourses,” he said.

Some 145 countries share these rivers and groundwaters linked to them. Their basins are home to 40% of the planet’s population. But only 40% of international watercourses are covered by official agreements on how to share and manage them, many of which are unsatisfactory. These weaknesses must be addressed to tackle global challenges like climate change and growing water demands.

Green Cross focuses on the nexus between environment, development and security. Its Water for Life and Peace Programme actively promotes ratification of the UN Watercourses Convention and implementation of the UN-recognized Right to Water and Sanitation. Green Cross also installs systems to provide sustainable water supplies and hygiene services in communities in Africa and Latin America. GCI is an independent non-profit and nongovernmental organization headquartered in Geneva and present in over 30 countries.

Contact
Paul Garwood
Director of communications
+41797760454 paul.garwood@gci.ch

3/2/12

3/2/12

Mar. 2, 2012 - The U.S. House of Representatives on Wednesday passed HR 1837, a bill that would address certain water-related concerns on the San Joaquin River in California's Central Valley.

The measure is supported by agriculture interests, including the Agricultural Retailers Association, Supima Cotton, the Western Plant Health Association, Apricot Producers of California, the California Cattlemen's Association, the California Cotton Ginners and Growers Associations, the California Poultry Federation, the Almond Hullers and Processors Association, the National Chicken Council, and the Fresno County, Madera County, Kings County, and Merced County Farm Bureaus. The measure is opposed by environmental policy groups, such as American Rivers, Earthjustice, the Environmental Defense Fund, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and the Nature Conservancy, as well as wildlife and fishing groups, such as the California Sportfishing Alliance, the Golden Gate Fishermen's Association, the Northern California Council of the Federation of Fly Fishers, Northwest Sportfishing Industry Alliance Oregon & Washington, Salmon Water Now, the San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association, the Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fishermen's Association, and Water4Fish. The measure has received a veto threat from President Obama.

Members of the California delegation were split on the measure, mostly along party lines. The 19 Republicans were joined by three Democrats in voting 'YES' on the bill. Of the remaining Democrats, 29 voted against the bill while two did not vote.

• Interest groups that support this bill (Agricultural chemicals (fertilizers & pesticides); Cotton; Farm bureaus; Farm organizations & cooperatives; Farmers, crop unspecified; Livestock; Poultry & eggs; Vegetables, fruits and tree nut) gave 9.2 times as much on average to California House members who voted 'YES' ($26,324) as they gave to California House members who voted 'NO' ($2,875).
• Interest groups that oppose this bill (Environmental policy; Fisheries & wildlife; Fishing) gave nearly 2 times as much on average to California House members who voted 'NO' ($6,013) as they gave to California House members who voted 'YES' ($3,043).

According to the LA Times, the bill guts a 20-year-old federal law that set aside a large portion of federal irrigation supplies in California for environmental purposes and toughened the terms of federal irrigation contracts. The legislation also rolls back fish protections stemming from a 1994 agreement between the state and federal government and it preempts California water law.

METHODOLOGY: MapLight analysis of reported contributions to congressional campaigns of House members in office on day of vote, from interest groups invested in the vote according to MapLight, July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2011. Contributions data source: OpenSecrets.org

A link to this data release can be found here.

MapLight is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization that reveals money's influence on politics.

Media Contact:
Pamela Heisey
c: 415-299-0898 | e:  pamela@maplight.org | t: @imonlyabill

2/27/11

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53585178-78/blue-castle-state-project.html.csp?page=1

More interesting revelations about the (pick your metaphor) house-of-cards, smoke-and-mirrors which is Blue Castle's alleged financing.

1/30/12

12/30/11

Senator Olson supports the initiative to revive the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP).  If you would like more information on this particular voter initiative, please contact the Alaska Sea Party. 

The appropriate contact is Chris Ashenbrenner, Coordinator at the Alaska Sea Party, at (907) 957-4540, or by email at: coordinator@alaskacoastalmanagement.org.  More information about this initiative can be found online at www.alaskacoastalmanagement.org.  The deadline is January 17^th, 2012. 

Thank you and Happy New Year.

Sincerely,

Loren Peterson

Staff to Senator Donald Olson

Senate District T
p: 907-269-0254
f: 907 269-2031

716 W. 4^th Ave, #530

Anchorage, AK 99501

www.aksenate.org/olson

10/25/11

•  

  NATIVE AMERICA CALLING

   

  www.nativeamericacalling.com/

  4 days ago – Native America Calling is a live call-in program, linking public radio stations ... But  Alaska is the only coastal state without a current coastal zone ..

   

  =================================================================================.

• Rep. Kerttula discusses  Coastal Zone on Native America Calling

   

  www.akbizmag.com/.../15514--rep-kerttula-discusses-coastal-zone-o...

  2 days ago – Beth Kerttula was on Native America Calling on public radio. She discussed  Alaska's need for a strong coastal zone management plan so that ...

• Alaska coastal management special session? Not yet. | Alaska ...

   

  www.alaskadispatch.com/.../alaska-coastal-management-special-sessio...

  Jun 17, 2011 – Lawmakers can call themselves into a special session if two-thirds of ... Alaska Natives, American Indians join forces to stave off potential .... Since the 1970s, Alaska has had a coastal zone management program that operates ...

10/25/11

I met the chairman of the San Carlos Apache Tribe from Arizona, and I recall that they were taking unique legal actions on water and human rights to defend sacred sites from  Rio Tinto, and BHP - Billiton.

We need to keep this case on our radar.

---

Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:55:17 -04
From: action@earthworksaction.org
To: nikospastos@hotmail.com
Subject: with proper link - TELL CONGRESS: don't destroy our public lands for a private mining company's gain!

TELL CONGRESS: don't destroy our public lands for a private mining company's gain! Urge your Representative to vote NO on H.R. 1904, the "give public/sacred land to multibillion dollar multinational mining companies of 2011" Dear Nikos, Rock climbing at Oak Flat is just one of many activities threatened by the land exchange bill We need your help to stop a bad piece of legislation that could be voted on as soon as tomorrow. Making legal what is now illegal HR 1904, actually titled the Southeastern Arizona Land Exchange and Conservation Act, would take a campground and sites sacred to area Native American tribes out of public hands and turn it over to Resolution Copper -- a foreign-owned mining company. And not just any mining company: Resolution Copper is co-owned by Rio Tinto and BHP - Billiton - the two largest metal mining comapnies in the world. They want to mine copper under a public lands now EXPLICITLY protected from mining. So they need H.R. 1904 to make legal what is now illegal. Land worth keeping protected The proposed mining area is not only prized by birders, campers, climbers and hikers, it is also considered sacred to the tribes in the area. The San Carlos Apache tribe is actively opposed to the land exchange and potential mine because of the destructive impacts it would have on the surrounding ecosystem and traditional use lands. TAKE ACTION: Please write your member of Congress today and ask them to vote NO on HR 1904 when it comes to the floor this week. Sincerely, Lauren Pagel, Policy Director (and the rest of the Earthworks team) Instructions: Go to the action page Enter your zipcode at page bottom to find your Representative. Read the sample letter that appears at page bottom, and edit if possible. Customized letters have greater impact. Click "Send My Message" to send your letter your Representative. For more information, visit the action page.

8/1/11

From: jenniferpeters@cwn.org
To: jenniferpeters@cwn.org
Subject: Thank you for signing on to our community letter!
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:19:54 -0400
 

Deputy Director
Clean Water Network
218 D Street, SE
Washington, D.C. 20003
202-547-4208
jenniferpeters@cwn.org
www.cwn.org

6/28/11

Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 12:41:08 -0800
Subject: Coastal Zone Management
From: amy@akmarine.org
To: carlwassilie.acyn@gmail.com; nikospastos@hotmail.com

Hello,

I just received a call from Juneau regarding CZM.  A special session has just been called regarding this issue and the governor and legislatures are debating it because they say they have not heard from Alaskans regarding it not passing last session.

So if you would like to see it pass then call your legislators TODAY ASAP.

Regarding the language of the act I would be sure to include that in your message as well.

Please pass this along to anyone who might be interested in Alaskans having a voice in this issue.

Thank you for your time,

Amy


--
Amy Kay Snider
Program and Outreach Assistant
Alaska Marine Conservation Council
Phone:907.277.5357
Fax:907.277.5357
www.akmarine.org

5/26/11

NPDES permit program Phase IV to ADEC revised MOA and program modifications documents can be found at the following website:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/npdes+permits/apdes

Here is the redline/strikeout version of the MOA:

(See attached file: MOA_Oct2008_rev_5-4-2011_redline_version.pdf)

The main modification is to delay the transition date of the 4th Phase
(Oil & Gas) from October 31, 2011 to October 31, 2012. This change of
date necessitated changes to that date in other parts of the MOA
(Appendix B) and the Program Description. These documents are on the
website but if you cannot access them, please let me know.
 

5/2/11

4/27/11

4/21/11

Dear All—

Please join Nancy Sutley, Chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Chair Sutley and Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change in a live chat from the South Lawn of the White House in celebration of Earth Day.

For more information please click here.

Open for Questions: Earth Day Live Chat from the South Lawn

Posted by Katelyn Sabochik on April 19, 2011 at 06:06 PM EDT

Update: The time for this event has been changed to 4:30 p.m. EDT on Thursday, April 21.  The post below has been updated to reflect this change.

In honor of Earth Day, Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, are hosting a special Open for Questions event live from the South Lawn of the White House.

If you’ve got questions about what the Obama Administration is doing to protect our air and water or how we’re building a clean energy future, be sure to tune in:

• • When: Thursday, April 21 at 4:30 p.m. EDT
  • Where: Streaming live from the South Lawn of the White House at WhiteHouse.gov/live and Facebook
  • Who: Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality Chair Nancy Sutley, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Heather Zichal, and YOU!
  • Get Involved: You can submit your questions via our Facebook chat application during the chat or submit them in advance on our webform.

Amelia Salzman

Associate Director for Policy Outreach

White House Council on Environmental Quality

730 Jackson Place, NW

Washington, DC  20530

202-456-3621

4/20/18

This notification is served on you in accordance with the requirements set forth in Section 385.2010 of the Commission's rules.

On 4/14/2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), Washington D.C., published the following issuance:

Docket(s): P-13227-002
Description: Notice of surrender of preliminary permit re Utah Independent Power, Inc under P-13227.

View the issuance

3/18/11

From Sonny George - "Vision for Our Future"

 I would like to send this guy ,my thought's about his point of view ,but I would get jail time for it.
                                                                     sonny
 
The Mishewal Wappo Indian claim on some property in Sonoma, Napa, or Lake counties is a difficult issue to discuss critically, because no one wants to appear to be kicking people who have already been so abused. So let's just stipulate from the beginning that the Indians, including if not especially in Napa, were treated disgracefully and I nor anyone I know want that to continue.
On the other hand, taking over a large piece of Federal property to most likely build a Casino that no one in the county wants is a very serious matter. It is important that this situation be evaluated fairly for all sides. 

So I went back and read the actual legal complaint, which you can find here: http://turtletalk.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/materials-in-mishewal-wappo-federal-recognition-case/

According to this the Wappo's were given land way back around the turn of the century, the 20th century that is, and held it until 1959. At that time due to a new California state law, individual Indians on the property were able to take possession of the various parcels as owners, and they then sold them, taking them out of the Indian reservation system.  The claim now is that due to certain omissions by the government at that time, some people claiming to be Wappo now want that land back, or some other property nearby. However, the reasons they give look pretty skimpy.
The government was supposed to put in an irrigation system and they didn't? Survey the parcels, bring the roads up to county standards?? Of what D minus? If they are still dirt roads they are probably better than county standards now!
But the real problem is that they waited 52 years to make these minor complaints, then say they want their land back, which they voluntarily gave up. It raises all kinds of credibility questions. 
They do note that other tribes along the way have successfully sued over similar issues, but that makes me wonder---then why wait 52 years if you really were aggrieved about this? It doesn't add up. What does add up is that none of these people who now claim to be Wappo were ever involved in any of the previous transactions and they are doing what is called reservation shopping. 
As someone familiar with the case in Napa told me, this is the usual pattern, find a basis of action to claim tribal status, get some property, build a casino. It has happened before, and it is very attractive as casinos in California took in $7.4 billion last year. This appears more likely to me to be the true scenario.
 

In an article published early on about the case on Indianz.com,  Mishewal Chairman Scott Gabaldon said the tribe has no plans for a casino and won't think about one until regaining federal recognition. Um, well, they are now suing for that recognition. And once they get that recognition they can do anything they want with the land, including building a casino, and they can lie til they are blue in the face now about it and it won't matter. 

They will be a sovereign nation, ruled by only minimal Federal laws. They can build a casino and not pay any taxes and not follow any local zoning or other laws. They can create all the traffic they want, all the infrastructure needs and problems they want, and there is nothing we can do locally about it. We will depend on the Federal government to reign in any problems, and look how well that worked with Berryessa. This looks like a huge problem for Napa if it happens. 
This is a particularly difficult problem for us as compared to other places, like San Pablo where the Indian casino is located near a freeway in an urban area. With the whole success of the county depending on the agricultural preserve,  and the decades of constant vigilance it has taken to keep it in farming and limit development, it would be a huge blow to the entire county to locate a casino here.
 

If you watch Congressional hearings on Indian affairs, like the one that took place this week it becomes abundantly clear that the whole system of reservations is not working on a lot of levels nor  has it for, oh, about a hundred years. Instead of restoring the Indian nation, it has enshrined poverty and all kinds of social problems. Sitting out on a reservation far from the rest of civilization is a prescription for failure, and the truth is that continuing to feed that system is not really improving things for anyone, Indian or non Indian. The casinos have helped very few. We need to move to a whole new approach, which is a large topic perhaps best left for another day, but the point is that to those saying this is somehow helping Indians restore their losses, not true. 

But right now we need to deal with the immediate problem of that legacy of failure being enacted in our county, and what's more the potential negative impact of a casino located in the ag preserve.
What seems fair to me is that if the Indians are given some property here, they ought to have to follow the same laws and rules that the rest of the property owners do. What seems outrageously unfair is to let one property owner subvert all the work thousands of property owners have done for decades to make this county work. Congress has it within its power to write a law for Napa protecting the agricultural preserve in the event of the Mishewal gaining some property here. They should do that. 
I encourage you to write to Mike Thompson expressing your opinion about this, as well as both California Senators, Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and politely explain why this would be devastating to the ag preserve and send us backwards from all the efforts we have made to preserve the world class agriculture we have been blessed with here in Napa.
 

Michael Haley blogs regularly on napavalleyregister.com and daily at www.napablogger.com. He is a former candidate for Napa County Supervisor and long time community activist.

9-25-10

Dawit Nida

Dear Tribal News Subscribers,
 

7-22-10

The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council has recently learned that Anchorage
Mayor Dan Sullivan has turned down an opportunity to permenatly
protect 60 acres of coastal wetlands
<http://www.ktuu.com/Global/story.asp?S=12825925>
by choosing instead to favor developing the land with luxury
condominiums. By regecting this opportunity to preserve critical
Beluga and Salmon habitat the mayor is showing his disrespect for both
subsistance and the enviornment.

We urge all subscribers to contact the mayors office at 907.343.7100 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              907.343.7100      end_of_the_skype_highlighting
and voice your discontent with this recent decision. It is critical we
take this opportunity to speak up and protect this critical habitat.

Thank you,

AI-TC Tribal News Team
5/25/10

"Rural Connections", a publication by the Western Rural Development Center at the Utah State University published my article entitled "Is the Failure to Recognize Tribal Interests Fueling the Water Crises?"

http://wrdc.usu.edu/htm/newsletters

Harold

4/23/10

Don't know if I mentioned to you, but the Winnemem trip to New Zealand was featured, I believe, on the front page of

3/16/10

3/3/10

1/21/10

Two new bills in the Utah State legislature that result from the state’s water and energy issues:

The first H.B. 84 allows the banking of water rights, administered by a local water district, including authorizing the district to: satisfy safe yield requirements of a groundwater management plan by holding rights for nonuse; use, lease, purchase, sale, or not use of water rights; file a water right change application; and relieves the district from forfeiture provisions for water rights held for water banking purposes.

The main concern with the bill is that it allow the water district to circumvent the normal application process for things like water right transfers and non-use as long as the rights are held by the district and used for banking purposes. Worse, there are not any provisions for mitigation should instream flow or other water right holders be impacted.

Also, it may be just a coincidence but water right transfer and certification extension standards are also issues in the San Juan and Kane County Water Right Transfer protests filed by multiple conservation organizations in Utah. Is it possible that the legislature is creating a mechanism that will make it easier, through water districts, to sell, transfer or place into nonuse, water rights for energy development?

1/18/10

For a really good article on the lust for Water in the West and blaming the invitable consequences on the enviros and tribes see:

Breakdown

'The Cadillac of California irrigation districts' has more than a tiny fish to blame for its troubles

http://www.hcn.org/issues/42.1/breakdown

Matt Jenkins, High Country News Vol. 42, No, 1

9/11/09

Hello everyone,

Good News as far as we know.  We are optimistic but will remain aware. The community here just received this and I am sure that it will hit the press soon.   Betsy Phair is a resident from McCloud who has been battling Nestle from the beginning. She had to work on this campaign to stop Nestle from a residence outside of McCloud for a while because she was being threatened.  

Exciting News........holding one beast at bay!  We are happy for our good water to keep flowing into the McCloud River and beyond.  Hopefully, this is one less battle for now.  Nestle has not come up with the price yet for their property..............know anyone interested in buying an old, possibly contaminated Mill Site?

Luisa and Mark M.

Good Afternoon,

To everyone who has helped with the on-going effort to keep Nestle/Arrowhead out of McCloud , Thank you!  I am pleased to forward the news that Nestle quietly announced to the MCSD today that they would not be "setting up shop" in McCloud and that they are having their  proposed bottling facility property in McCloud appraised.  This is wonderful news on the surface.  I am cautiously optimistic!  I don't trust Nestle.  
 
Some of us have been engaged in this battle since 2003, when we were aware of Nestle's egregious contract with the McCloud Community Services District (MCSD).   Immediately before the statute of limitations, Concerned McCloud Citizens filed a lawsuit against Nestle and were victorious in Superior Court.  We were very nervous and scared and had no idea of what we were doing! Our numbers were so few.

When I first got involved, I was asked  by some mentors, how many years I was willing to spend in this "fight".  I was amazed that they thought it was going to take years, and, how right they were.
 
Our supporters and financial backing increased over the years.  At the same time, so many of us have contributed countless and countless hours and money out of our own pockets, not only working against Nestle, but also to educate the MCSD  and the community of McCloud and anyone else throughout the state and the country who would listen. The gist of our message was about the immense consequences of the one-sided Nestle contract and how detrimental it would be to the community and those  downstream who valued their wells and our rivers.
 
I will still forward articles that will continue to educate all those who are interested in following this issue.  If there are any of you on my  regular email list who would like to discontinue receiving these educational emails about Nestle, bottled water, aquifers, climate change, Crystal Geyser, water privatization, etc,  please let me know.

Thank you again for your continued support and passion!
 With much appreciation,
Betsy Phair

8/19/09

FYI
Oscar Olivera, a spokesperson for the popular movements that ejected the Bechtel Corporation from Bolivia in 2000, is fond of saying that,"Behind the fight for water is the struggle for democracy."

Nikos Pastos

"A global uprising is underway to ensure water as a protected part of the global commons." 

---

To: nikospastos@hotmail.com
From: info@globaljusticeecology.org
Subject: Changing the Flow
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 09:37:36 -0500

 

If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it online.

Changing the Flow:   Water Movements in Latin America This 56 page booklet was produced by Food and Water Watch, Red Vida, Transnational Institute, The RPR Network and Other Worlds.  (Cover photo: Orin Langelle, Global Justice Ecology Project) It was distributed at the 5th World Water Forum held in Istanbul,Turkey 16-22 March 2009.  Water Rights activists blasted the World Water Forum as a "Corporate Trade Show to Promote Privatization." The booklet is comprised of individual and collective stories throughout Latin America.  The entire booklet can be downloaded at www.globaljusticeecology.org/publications.php?ID. Here is a reprint of the INTRODUCTION THE RISE OF WATER ON THE GLOBAL AGENDA In case after case around the world, water has been turned into a profit making commodity - preventing access to the most essential element on Earth. Pollution, corporate takeover, and the mismanagement of water ecosystems have resulted in dire water poverty and scarcity in many parts of the world.   Private ownership of water and water-delivery systems does not resolve, but rather, compounds the longstanding and deep-seated abuse, neglect, mismanagement, and exploitation of water. Mark Twain said, "Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting over." As you read this, corporations and governments the world over - backed by their allies in the World Bank, IMF, and World Trade Organisation - are putting 'for sale' signs on urban and rural water systems. In 90 percent of the world, the state still controls water, and even where it is partnered with a community, it often fails egregiously to protect earth rights and human rights. (We can see this in the deaths of 4000 to 5000 children each day as a result of lack of access to safe water.)   Despite this bleak reality, citizens are both effectively resisting threats and creating alternatives.  They are bringing fresh perspectives, building the power and the rights of the citizen and the worker, and creating innovations in public and community water systems. A global uprising is underway to ensure water as a protected part of the global commons. Popular pressure is winning victories, setting precedents and winning inventive guarantees to free or low-cost, accessible, safe water.  In one of many examples, in April, 2008, after a many-year fight involving political and legal pressure, the grassroots Coalition Against Water Privatisation won a lawsuit granting the township of Soweto, South Africa the legal right to tap water for all, no matter how poor. Communities across the U.S. and Canada have risen up and demanded that their representatives rescind sweetheart deals that allow Nestlé and other corporations to pump water from rivers, lakes, and aquifers and then sell it as bottled water for up to 1000 times the cost of tap water. Sustained mobilisation has kept corporations from purchasing municipal water systems in many parts of the worlds. The Council of Popular and Indigenous Organisations in Honduras used courts and direct action to stop corporations from building hydroelectric plants on their rivers. Popular pressure is forcing some governments to step up, too. In November, 2008, eight South Asian states (India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka) issued a joint declaration recognising that access to sanitation and safe drinking water is a basic right, and making sanitation a national priority. Nationalconstitutions in Uruguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia now enshrine water as a human right and bar it from being sold into private hands. As of this writing, water rights activists in Colombia have finished collecting the requisite number of signatures to amend the national constitution, and are lobbying the Parliament for a referendum; Costa Rica has a draft bill pending votes. Mexico and El Salvador have started campaigns to lobby their governments to deem water a human right in their constitutions. In 2005, after years of protest by residents and international allies against a Coca-Cola plant for extracting so much groundwater that it dried up many wells and polluted the groundwater in the village of Plachimada in Kerala, India, local government decreed that residents' access to water trumped corporate power, and ordered the operation shut down. Elsewhere around the world, people and governments are fighting dams, water pollution, and other destructive development. Rather than allowing this development path to continue, they are protecting this precious ecological resource through alternative water management practices such as water conservation, ecological sanitation, reforestation, rainwater harvesting, water catchments and retention structures, and watershed protection. In cases where water has been barred - or wrested back - from corporate ownership, various management models are in use.  Though the challenges are immense, villages and cities are meeting various needs and contexts through public management, cooperatives, public-community partnerships, and community management. In addition, public-public partnerships are being developed to diffuse good practice and learning.  These systems of water service delivery stand out as the only viable and just solutions for the dire challenges in water and sanitation. They are the only vehicles though which those citizens and those workers can take part in controlling and managing their own water. They require government transparency and the willingness to ensure both participation by the citizenry and democ- racy in the workplace (thus allowing workers and trade unions to actively participate and co-manage water systems).  These are the ingredients that will make it possible - and in some cases, are making it possible - to ensure the right to water for all, especially for the poorest and most vulnerable. Integral to the fight for water is another fight, equally fundamental, for a new model of citizen power and a new accountability from the state. Oscar Olivera, a spokesperson for the popular movements that ejected the Bechtel Corporation from Bolivia in 2000, is fond of saying that, "Behind the fight for water is the struggle for democracy." But democracy, in this sense, is not limited to the election of officials to national office in hopes that they will represent the will of the people.  For the water movements, true democracy demands a redefinition of politics, and of the nation itself as a political structure. Saúl Atanacio Roqué Morales, an elder statesman for control of indigenous water from Mexico, re-minds us that, "The nation is us, the people." The movement is discovering, too, a new definition of citizenry that goes beyond national boundaries.  Throughout our region in the Americas, we are making important steps toward building alliances that, at the same time, respect the differences and diversity of experiences. We are using globalisation to our favour, to bring us in in close contact and solidarity with each other. As Salvadoran water warrior Ana Ella Gomez says, "We are many voices, one echo." In a world where wealth, resources, and political power are usually concentrated in a small group, the wave of victories in water battles shows what highly informed and organised popular movements can do. The war is far from won; in most parts of the world, water privatisation is still the dominant trend.  And where water remains public, it is often in the hands of corrupt or incapable public authorities that refuse to be transparent or to allow participation. But we are seeing that the fi ght for access to clean, af- fordable water can be won. To quote Ana Ella again: "We are constructing a new definition of hope." In this booklet you will hear from some of the most visionary water warriors in Latin America. We hope you will be inspired by the visions, experiences, and lessons they have to share. We also hope that if you are not already, you too will become a water warrior to guarantee that water be protected as the fundament of life itself, for human beings and the whole planet.

8/12/09

Marine Spatial Planning has made it into the main fishing trade magazine – check it out!

This just in from National Fisherman magazine….

CLICK HERE FOR ARTICLE

 8/10/08

 The New Administration Should Require that the State of Alaska Consult with Tribal Governments when Administering Water Pollution Control Program
The New Administration Should Require that the State of Alaska Consult with Tribal Governments when Administering Water Pollution Control Program
Clean water is vital to the subsistence resources at the heart of Alaska tribal cultures. Yet the Bush Administration recently approved a measure that will reduce if not eliminate the ability of Alaska Tribes to influence decisions on pollutant discharges into Alaska waters. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the application of the State of Alaska to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program in Alaska.1 This transfer of responsibility from EPA to the State, effective October 31, 2008, gives the State "primacy" in carrying out NPDES permitting, compliance and enforcement responsibilities with respect to discharges of pollutants into the waters of Alaska. Because the State refuses to recognize the sovereign status of tribal governments, the State will not engage in government-to-government consultations with Alaska Tribes when carrying out the Alaska Pollution Discharge Elimination System (APDES) program. We call on the Obama Administration to withdraw approval of the APDES program until Tribes and the State can negotiate an acceptable role for Tribes in the APDES process.
Because Alaska Tribes generally lack territorial sovereignty or "Indian country,"2 the EPA has not allowed Alaska Tribes "treatment as states" for NPDES purposes. But the EPA has consulted with Alaska Tribes in permitting and other decisions, in accordance with federal law and agency policy. As stated in EPA Region 10's "Guiding Principles" of Tribal Consultation, "The Region will consult with federally recognized tribal governments in a sensitive manner respectful of tribal sovereignty and culture."3 In stark contrast, the State of Alaska refuses to even recognize Tribes as separate sovereigns, let alone commit to consultation with them on a government-to-government basis. By transferring the NPDES program to the State, the EPA has effectively removed tribal input and influence from the process. In doing so, the EPA abdicated the federal trust responsibility to protect Alaska Tribes and the critical natural resources on which they depend.
When the EPA submitted the State's application for public review and comment, many Alaska Tribes, individual Natives, and tribal organizations—including the Maniilaq Association—objected to the lack of government-to-government consultation in the proposed APDES program. The EPA acknowledged these concerns, and recognized that tribes would have no more rights or considerations than the rest of the public under the APDES program, a significant change from their relationship with EPA under the NPDES program.4 Even so, the EPA approved the State's application without ensuring that the APDES program includes meaningful tribal participation.
We request that the EPA temporarily suspend its approval of the APDES program until an appropriate means of tribal participation can be agreed on by the EPA, Tribes, and the State. To this end, we ask that the EPA convene a meeting of Federal, State, and Tribal representatives to negotiate an APDES process that best incorporates the knowledge and perspectives of Alaska Tribes and their members.
1. 73 Fed. Reg. 66243 (Nov. 7, 2008).
2. An exception is the Metlakatla Indian Community, which exercises jurisdiction over the Annette Island Reserve. EPA will retain NPDES responsibility for discharges on the Annette Island Reserve.
3. Guiding Principles #1, available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/tribal.NSF/Programs/Consultation.
4. Response to Comments, Alaska National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program Approval at 31-34 (Oct. 31, 2008), available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/r10/water.nsf/95537302e2c56cea8825688200708c9a/3c4664dd51c3821488257059007de85d/$FILE/RTC%2010-30-08.pdf.

CLICK HERE FOR LINK TO EPA LETTER
 

731/09

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:      EPA Indian Policy

FROM:           Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

TO:                All EPA Employees

In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency became the first federal agency to adopt a formal Indian Policy.  Today, 25 years later, I am proud to formally reaffirm that policy.  By my action, EPA reiterates its recognition that the United States has a unique legal relationship with tribal governments based on the Constitution, treaties, statutes, Executive Orders, and court decisions.  EPA recognizes the right of tribes as sovereign governments to self-determination and acknowledges the federal government’s trust responsibility to tribes.  EPA works with tribes on a government-to-government basis to protect the land, air, and water in Indian country.

EPA’s tribal program has evolved since the Indian Policy was first adopted.  Many significant milestones and successes in the EPA-tribal environmental partnership during these years can be directly traced to the EPA Indian Policy and the EPA-staff commitment to the EPA Indian Policy.

Today, EPA faces unique challenges that both the President and I believe require a full commitment to our nation’s environmental and energy future: Leading the world in reversing our collective greenhouse gas emissions’ growth, decreasing our dependency on foreign oil, creating millions of new jobs in emerging clean-energy technologies, and reducing the pollution that can endanger our children.  A clean energy environment is to this decade and the next what the Space Race was to the 1950s and 1960s, and, as America moves forward, tribes are essential partners in this future.

It is an important day in our partnership with tribes as EPA builds on past successes and strives to meet current and future environmental challenges in Indian country.  Please join me in continuing to build a strong partnership with tribal governments to protect human health and the environment in Indian country.

Sincerely,
Lisa P. Jackson

7/5/09

Court's mine ruling may threaten Iliamna
COMPASS: Other points of view

By IZETTA CHAMBERS

Published: 07/02/09 22:54:25

I was dismayed and frankly, disgusted at the recent Supreme Court decision that would allow the Kensington gold mine to dump industrial waste into a freshwater lake. Those of us who depend upon the salmon fishery are frustrated that the Clean Water Act could be subverted in such a way.

My family and I have commercially fished the waters of the Bristol Bay watershed for four generations. I formed and now manage Naknek Family Fisheries, a family-owned and operated fishing business located in Naknek, on the shores of Bristol Bay. Our livelihoods are now threatened more than ever by this dangerous legal ruling.

One of Northern Dynasty's options proposed for waste disposal has been to pump it into Lake Iliamna. Even if they decide against this option, the tailings pond could wipe out Frying Pan lake, a spawning ground for juvenile salmon.

You can read the full story online at:

http://www.adn.com/opinion/compass/story/851983.html?story_link=email_msg

 

6/25/09

From: Joseph Bogaard, Columbia & Snake Rivers Campaign <snakeriver@wildsalmon.org>
Date: Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:01 AM
Subject: BIG NEWS: Salmon & Fishing Leaders Meet with Obama Administration Officials
To: Carl Wassilie <carlwassilie.acyn@gmail.com>


 

6/23/09

Oregon Natural Desert Association

Explore the Owyhee Canyonlands

Dear Harold, Owyhee, the lonely river Straddling the intersection of southeastern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northern Nevada, the Owyhee Canyonlands weigh in at 3 million acres of public land. This landscape is connected by the Owyhee River, which begins in Nevada, winding through Idaho and into Oregon through one of the most sparsely populated areas in the contiguous United States. Its spectacular canyons reveal 14 million years of geologic history. The Owyhee's vast network of deep basalt river canyons and sagebrush-peppered plateaus serves as a bittersweet reminder of what the American West once was. Click here to download your very own Owyhee Canyonlands desktop background image The Owyhee Canyonlands host more than 200 species of wildlife and a number of threatened or sensitive species including the world's largest herd of California bighorn sheep, several species of bats, sage grouse, redband trout, peregrine falcons, golden eagles, pronghorn antelope, elk, longnose snakes, bobcats, and pygmy rabbits. Click here to explore more of the Owyhee region. Innumerable archaeological and historical sites are also hidden within the Owyhee's canyons and people remain fascinated and drawn to this remarkable and sometimes forbidding area. Although the region's profound remoteness keeps it off most people's list of top 10 vacation destinations, you will be rewarded greatly if you make the effort to explore this region. While the bulk of the Owyhee's acreage consists of uplands and expansive plateaus, it is the deep, incised basalt canyons and the waters flowing through them that capture the hearts and minds of most visitors. The Owyhee River continues to grow in popularity for the rafting, hiking and other recreation and opportunities for solitude that it offers.

Bad 6-3 decision out of the Supremes -

Coeur Alaska gets to pollute the lakes and streams with their Kensington
gold mine waste :-(

CLICK HERE FOR LINK TO DECISION

The Light in the Long Tunnel - Justice Ginsberg's Dissent

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=07-984#dissent1

 Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Stevens and Justice Souter join, dissenting.

     Petitioner Coeur Alaska, Inc., proposes to discharge 210,000 gallons per day of mining waste into Lower Slate Lake, a 23-acre subalpine lake in Tongass National Forest. The "tailings slurry" would contain concentrations of aluminum, copper, lead, and mercury. Over the life of the mine, roughly 4.5 million tons of solid tailings would enter the lake, raising the bottom elevation by 50 feet. It is undisputed that the discharge would kill all of the lake's fish and nearly all of its other aquatic life.¹

     Coeur Alaska's proposal is prohibited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) performance standard forbidding any discharge of process wastewater from new "froth-flotation" mills into waters of the United States. See 40 CFR §440.104(b)(1) (2008). Section 306 of the Clean Water Act directs EPA to promulgate such performance standards, 33 U. S. C. §1316(a), and declares it unlawful for any discharger to violate them, §1316(e). Ordinarily, that would be the end of the inquiry.

     Coeur Alaska contends, however, that its discharge is not subject to EPA's regulatory regime, but is governed, instead, by the mutually exclusive permitting authority of the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has authority, under §404 of the Act, §1344(a), to issue permits for discharges of "dredged or fill material." By regulation, a discharge that has the effect of raising a water body's bottom elevation qualifies as "fill material." See 33 CFR §323.2(e) (2008). Discharges properly within the Corps' permitting authority, it is undisputed, are not subject to EPA performance standards. See ante, at 20; Brief for Petitioner Coeur Alaska 26; Brief for Respondent Southeast Alaska Conservation Council et al. 37.

     The litigation before the Court thus presents a single question: Is a pollutant discharge prohibited under §306 of the Act eligible for a §404 permit as a discharge of fill material? In agreement with the Court of Appeals, I would answer no. The statute's text, structure, and purpose all mandate adherence to EPA pollution-control requirements. A discharge covered by a performance standard must be authorized, if at all, by EPA.

I

A

     Congress enacted the Clean Water Act in 1972 "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity" of the waters of the United States. 33 U. S. C. §1251(a). "The use of any river, lake, stream or ocean as a waste treatment system," the Act's drafters stated, "is unacceptable." S. Rep. No. 92-414, p. 7 (1971).Congress announced in the Act itself an ambitious objective: to eliminate, by 1985, the discharge of all pollutants into the Nation's navigable waters. 33 U. S. C. §1251(a).

     In service of its goals, Congress issued a core command: "[T]he discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful," except in compliance with the Act's terms. §1311(a). The Act's substantive requirements--housed primarily in Subchapter III, "Standards and Enforcement"--establish "a comprehensive regulatory program supervised by an expert administrative agency," EPA. Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304, 317 (1981). See also 33 U. S. C. §1251(d) ("Except as otherwise expressly provided ... , the Administrator of [EPA] shall administer this [Act].").

     The Act instructs EPA to establish various technology-based, increasingly stringent effluent limitations for categories of point sources. E.g., §§1311, 1314. These limitations, formulated as restrictions "on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents," §1362(11), were imposed to achieve national uniformity among categories of sources. See, e.g., E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S. 112, 129-130 (1977). The limitations for a given discharge depend on the type of pollutant and source at issue.²

     Of key importance, new sources must meet stringent "standards of performance" adopted by EPA under §306. That section makes it "unlawful for any ... new source to operate ... in violation of" an applicable performance standard. 33 U. S. C. §1316(e) (emphasis added). In line with Congress' aim "to insure ...'maximum feasible control of new sources,' " du Pont, 430 U. S., at 138, the preferred standard for a new source is one " 'permitting no discharge of pollutants,' " id., at 137-138 (quoting 33 U. S. C. §1316(a)(1) (emphasis added)). Moreover, new sources, unlike existing sources, are not eligible for EPA-granted variances from applicable limitations. 430 U. S., at 138.³

     In 1982, EPA promulgated new source performance standards for facilities engaged in mining, including those using a froth-flotation milling process. See Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards, 47 Fed. Reg. 54598 (1982). Existing mills, the Agency found, were already achieving zero discharge; it was therefore practicable, EPA concluded, for new mills to do as well. Id., at 54602. Accordingly, under 40 CFR §440.104(b)(1), new mines using the froth-flotation method, as Coeur Alaska proposes to do, may not discharge wastewater directly into waters of the United States.

B

     The nationwide pollution-control requirements just described are implemented through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), a permitting scheme set forth in §402 and administered by EPA and the States. The NPDES is the linchpin of the Act, for it transforms generally applicable effluent limitations into the individual obligations of each discharger. EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U. S. 200, 205 (1976). The discharge of a pollutant is generally prohibited unless the source has obtained a NPDES permit. E.g., EPA v. National Crushed Stone Assn., 449 U. S. 64, 71 (1980) ("Section 402 authorizes the establishment of the [NPDES], under which every discharger of pollutants is required to obtain a permit.").

     The Act also establishes a separate permitting scheme, administered by the Corps, for discharges of "dredged or fill material." 33 U. S. C. §1344(a). Section 404 hews to the Corps' established expertise in matters of navigability and construction. The §404 program does not implement the uniform, technology-based pollution-control standards set out, inter alia, in §306. Instead, §404 permits are subject to regulatory guidelines based generally on the impact of a discharge on the receiving environment. See §1344(b); ante, at 4-5.

     As the above-described statutory background indicates, Coeur Alaska's claim to a §404 permit carries weighty implications. If eligible for that permit, Coeur Alaska can evade the exacting performance standard prescribed by EPA for froth-flotation mills. It may, instead, use Lower Slate Lake "as the settling pond and disposal site for the tailings." App. 360a (Corps' Record of Decision).

II

     Is a pollutant discharge prohibited under §306(e) eligible to receive a §404 permit as a discharge of fill material? All agree on preliminary matters. Only one agency, the Corps or EPA, can issue a permit for the discharge. See ante, at 10, 22. Only EPA, through the NPDES program, issues permits that implement §306. See supra, at 2. Further, §306(e) and EPA's froth-flotation performance standard, unless inapplicable here, bar Coeur Alaska's proposed discharge. See ante, at 14-15.

     No part of the statutory scheme, in my view, calls into question the governance of EPA's performance standard. The text of §306(e) states a clear proscription: "[I]t shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of any new source to operate such source in violation of any standard of performance applicable to such source." 33 U. S. C. §1316(e). Under the standard of performance relevant here, "there shall be no discharge of process wastewater to navigable waters from mills that use the froth-flotation process" for mining gold. 40 CFR §440.104(b)(1). The Act imposes these requirements without qualification.

     Section 404, stating that the Corps "may issue permits" for the discharge of "dredged or fill material," does not create an exception to §306(e)'s plain command. 33 U. S. C. §1344(a). Cf. ante, at 12. Section 404 neither mentions §306 nor states a contrary requirement. The Act can be home to both provisions, with no words added or omitted, so long as the category of "dredged or fill material" eligible for a §404 permit is read in harmony with §306. Doing so yields a simple rule: Discharges governed by EPA performance standards are subject to EPA's administration and receive permits under the NPDES, not §404.

     This reading accords with the Act's structure and objectives. It retains, through the NPDES, uniform application of the Act's core pollution-control requirements, and it respects Congress' special concern for new sources. Leaving pollution-related decisions to EPA, moreover, is consistent with Congress' delegation to that agency of primary responsibility to administer the Act. Most fundamental, adhering to §306(e)'s instruction honors the overriding statutory goal of eliminating water pollution, and Congress' particular rejection of the use of navigable waters as waste disposal sites. See supra, at 2-3. See also 33 U. S. C. §1324 (creating "clean lakes" program requiring States to identify and restore polluted lakes).⁴

     The Court's reading, in contrast, strains credulity. A discharge of a pollutant, otherwise prohibited by firm statutory command, becomes lawful if it contains sufficient solid matter to raise the bottom of a water body, transformed into a waste disposal facility. Whole categories of regulated industries can thereby gain immunity from a variety of pollution-control standards. The loophole would swallow not only standards governing mining activities, see 40 CFR pt. 440 (effluent limitations and new source performance standards for ore mining and dressing); id., pt. 434 (coal mining); id., pt. 436 (mineral mining), but also standards for dozens of other categories of regulated point sources, see, e.g., id.,pt. 411 (cement manufacturing); id.,pt. 425 (leather tanning and finishing); id.,pt. 432 (meat and poultry products processing). See also Brief for American Rivers et al. as Amici Curiae 26-27 (observing that discharges in these categories "typically contain high volumes of solids"). Providing an escape hatch for polluters whose discharges contain solid matter, it bears noting, is particularly perverse; the Act specifically focuses on solids as harmful pollutants. See 33 U. S. C. §1314(a)(4) (requiring EPA to publish information regarding "conventional pollutants," including "suspended solids"); Brief for American Rivers, supra, at 28-29, and n. 18 (identifying over 50 effluent limitations that restrict total suspended solids).⁵

     Congress, we have recognized, does not "alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions--it does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes." Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457, 467-468 (2001). Yet an alteration of that kind is just what today's decision imagines. Congress, as the Court reads the Act, silently upended, in an ancillary permitting provision, its painstaking pollution-control scheme. See ante, at 17.Congress did so, the Court holds, notwithstanding the lawmakers' stated effort "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity" of the waters of the United States, 33 U. S. C. §1251(a); their assignment to EPA of the Herculean task of setting strict effluent limitations for many categories of industrial sources; and their insistence that new sources meet even more ambitious standards, not subject to exception or variance. Would a rational legislature order exacting pollution limits, yet call all bets off if the pollutant, discharged into a lake, will raise the water body's elevation? To say the least, I am persuaded, that
is not how Congress intended the Clean Water Act to operate.

      In sum, it is neither necessary nor proper to read the statute as allowing mines to bypass EPA's zero-discharge standard by classifying slurry as "fill material." The use of waters of the United States as "settling ponds" for harmful mining waste, the Court of Appeals correctly held, is antithetical to the text, structure, and purpose of the Clean Water Act.

*  *  *

Ethiopia Claims High Ground In Right-To-Nile Debate

()  

Egypt uses more Nile River water than any other country, citing colonial-era agreements as proof of entitlement. But upstream, Ethiopia has begun asserting its rights and has visions of harnessing the river to produce more electricity and irrigation.

On Weekend Edition SundayPlaylist

View in a browser window Subscribe to the Magazine Renew Donate Now Feedback The Magazine Topics Blogs & Opinion Jobs & Classifieds Conferences The perfect (environmental) storm If you're looking for a single story that sums up all of the West's environmental problems, check out "California Dreamin'"-- the cover story in the current edition of High Country News. It involves water, industrial-scale diversions to support farmers and urban residents, endangered species and ecosystems, drought and climate change, unsustainability and overpopulation, stakeholder negotiations, and regulatory processes dragging on for decades, with many bursts of optimism but little or no real progress. The heart of the story is the Bay-Delta estuary, between San Francisco and Sacramento. Two-thirds of the state's water supply is drawn from the Delta, with terrible consequences for the estuary's ecosystem. If you don't think that's relevant to you, consider this passage from the story: Even if you don't live in California, if you've ever eaten Blue Diamond almonds or Muir Glen organic tomatoes, Dole asparagus or Bunny Luv baby carrots, Corn Nuts or Earthbound lettuce, or knocked back a bottle of POM Wonderful or Bolthouse Farms juice -- or Two Buck Chuck from Trader Joe's -- you are a California water user. HCN contributing editor Matt Jenkins, who's been writing about water around the West for nearly a decade, explores the recent politics and long history of California's crisis, explaining how it represents many complex environmental problems that engender anger and controversy and seemingly never get solved. -Ray Ring, senior editor FEATURES   California's water history A multimedia timeline of the Golden State's water wranglings over the past 120 years.     Ocelots in Arizona? The first confirmed ocelot sighting in Arizona in 50 years spurs an update of a federal recovery plan.    View the latest issue » RSS » Robert Redford urges you to support High Country News. "If, like me, you care about the West, and care about preserving both a way of life that still matters to the soul of our nation ... then you owe High Country News a debt of gratitude. Please do what you can to support them today with your tax-deductible gift." WRITERS ON THE RANGE   Save the refuge while there's still time President Obama should preserve the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as a national monument for all Americans.      The lessons of Butte, Montana During the labor struggles of the early 20th century, rough-and-tumble Butte, Mont., survived as a community because of -- rather than despite -- its ethnic diversity.      It was written on the wind Remembering the untimely death of a "downwinder" brother from New Mexico.    More Writers on the Range » RSS » BOOK REVIEWS   Infinite problems, small solutions In The Fate of Nature, Alaskan reporter Charles Wohlforth ponders how to save the planet, starting with Alaska.       Excavating John Kate Niles' wry and compassionate novel The Book of John tracks the travails of an archaeologist named John Gregory Wayne Thompson.       Seven months of solitude A young writer named Steve Edwards spends seven months living by Oregon's Rogue River in his memoir, Breaking into the Backcountry.     More Book Reviews »     FROM THE BLOGS The GOAT Blog Snowbound? Take a virtual tour of the West New data from the U.S. Census Bureau and the New York Times   A Just West A new standard for tribal and U.S. relations Will Obama's lip service lead to real changes for treatment of tribes?   The Range Climate change's threat to the wolverine The ESA can't do much anyway   More from the blogs » RSS » Mule deer are declining in the Pinedale Anticline, a Wyoming gas patch. Is the BLM doing enough to protect them? Our HCN podcast covers the story. You can listen to the FREE podcast on HCN.org, or subscribe via RSS reader or iTunes! Comment of the week Grazing per se is not the problem, but rather confining grazing animals unnaturally in the absence of predators. Ceal Smith on Ranchers can fight global climate change, one acre at a time FEATURED SPONSORS Vermont Law School Vermont Law School For the community and the world vermontlaw.edu New Belgium Brewing 2º Below Winter Ale - 2° Below provides a bright, hoppy palate and a cheery warm afterglow. newbelgium.com Robert C McHugh Architect Environmentally conscious living...Creative design www.robertcmchugh.com   High Country News 119 Grand Avenue PO Box 1090 Paonia, CO 81428 We appreciate your feedback! Please, send us your comments and suggestions. Want off the list? remove me from the list This email was sent to: laoch@uci.net ©2010 High Country News. Feel free to forward this newsletter.

FYI..."Water Law An Accident Waiting to Happen," by Bill Frank, Jr. is about an important piece of legislation we should all be aware of...Please share widely. Peace, Shl