Posted on 03/10/2010 11:15:52 PM PST by CounterCounterCulture
Meg Whitman and the Delta Smelt
Meg Whitman’s charitable foundation, established ostensibly for charitable purposes, inexplicably gave at least $300,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund’s Center For Rivers and Deltas. In 2007, Meg Whitman’s foundation gave $100,000 to EDF. Not content with that amount, Meg Whitman doubled down in 2008 by donating $200,000.
The water crisis is affecting jobs in the Central Valley, with most cities and towns hovering near a 15% unemployment rate. The EDF has continually sided with the fish over the farmers and Meg Whitman’s $300,000 donation helped fund these efforts. Over the past few years, EDF has argued that:
Meg Whitman’s decision to donate $300,000 to EDF raises serious questions about her judgment and what she truly believes.
EDF: Water Is Too Cheap:
EDF Headline On Website: “Water Is Too Cheap And Supply Is Limited.” (Environmental Defense Fund Website, www.edf.org, Accessed 3/2/10)
•NOTE: “The problem with water in the West is not just that supply is limited, but that it is too cheap.” (Environmental Defense Fund Website, www.edf.org, Accessed 3/2/10)
EDF: Water Should Be Rationed:
EDF And Center For Rivers And Deltas Said California Should Recognize That Water Should Be Rationed. “Rather than embrace the false hope that we can continue to take ever-increasing amounts of water from our rivers and streams, we should recognize that a prosperous future depends on both agriculture and cities learning to live within a water budget. We can and should set realistic expectations about what reasonably can be diverted from the natural system, without risking our economic future.” (Cynthia Koehler and Laura Harnish, Op-Ed, “The Water Debate We Are Not Having,” Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com, 6/3/09)
EDF Wants To Move California Away From The “False Choice Of ‘Fish Versus People’”: EDF Wants California To “Move Away From The False Choice Of ‘Fish Versus People.’” “Our hope is that whatever package is ultimately approved will help Californians move away from the false choice of ‘fish versus people’ and turn to a solution that protects the estuary, its native wildlife, and the fisheries and human communities–including farmers– that depend on the Delta’s health.” (Ann Hayden, “The ESA: Again At The Center Of The Blame Game,” Environmental Defense Fund’s “On The Water Front” Blog, blogs.edf.org, 8/18/09)
EDF Criticized The Wall Street Journal, Arguing That It Was Not A False Choice Between Fish Versus Jobs. “The Wall Street Journal’s editorial ‘California’s Man-Made Drought’ (Sept. 2), buys into the false choice of fish versus jobs. It is disappointing that the Journal, given its financial focus, fails to address or even acknowledge opportunities for market-based solutions to improve water use efficiency. The editorial also ignores many salient aspects of water management in California.” (Spreck Rosekrans, “The Wall Street Journal Buys Into A False Choice,” Environmental Defense Fund’s “On The Water Front” Blog, blogs.edf.org, 9/3/09)
EDF Attorney And Senior Director Of Center For Rivers And Deltas Co-Wrote Huffington Post Op-Ed Opposing The Waiver Of The Endangered Species Act: EDF’s Cynthia Koehler And Center For Rivers And Deltas’ Laura Harnish Said Waiving The Endangered Species Act For Fish Would Not Secure The Economic Health Of The Central Valley. “The premise behind the waiver proposal — that problems facing San Joaquin agriculture will be resolved if the massive pumps that move water from the Delta to the Valley are turned back on and the water flows again — is an appealing one. Putting aside the question of whether pumping more water would mean the demise of our salmon and other fisheries; would ending endangered fish protections secure the economic health of the San Joaquin Valley’s agricultural sector? The answer is no.” (Cynthia Koehler and Laura Harnish, Op-Ed, “The Water Debate We Are Not Having,” Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com, 6/3/09)
According To EDF And Center For Rivers And Deltas, “Protections For Endangered Fish Are Not The Major Cause Of Farmers’ Water-Related Pain.” “Protections for endangered fish are not the major cause of farmers’ water-related pain. Officials estimate that without restrictions on pumping to protect endangered fish, farmers who receive water from the State Water Project might see their irrigation allocations reach 35 percent this year instead of 30 percent, while allocations for south-of-Delta farmers using the federal Central Valley Project would see an increase in their allocations from 10 percent to 15 percent.” (Cynthia Koehler and Laura Harnish, Op-Ed, “The Water Debate We Are Not Having,” Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com, 6/3/09)
EDF And Center For Rivers And Deltas Reiterated That Eliminating The Endangered Species Act Protections Would Not Restore Economic Vitality. “So while we acknowledge that protecting fish somewhat reduces the amount of water available for San Joaquin farming, and that this has economic impacts, the question remains: would eliminating endangered species protections restore economic health to the Valley? Again, the answer is no.” (Cynthia Koehler and Laura Harnish, Op-Ed, “The Water Debate We Are Not Having,” Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com, 6/3/09)
In 2005, EDF Argued In The U.S. Supreme Court That Central Valley Farmers Had No Right To Sue The Federal Government When It Reduced Water Deliveries Under The Endangered Species Act. The Case Began When The Bureau Of Reclamation Reduced Water Deliveries Under The Endangered Species Act. “In the early 1990s, the Bureau reduced the amount of water delivered, to comply with the Endangered Species Act.” (Brief for Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. as Respondents, Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005) (No. 03-1566))
Individual Farmers Sued The Federal Government, Seeking Compensation For Their Losses. “Although the water district and some of the parties stipulated to a dismissal, some intervening plaintiffs–individual farmers and farming entities–pressed forward with various claims, among them that the United States had breached the 1963 contract by reducing the delivery of water.” (Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005))
Environmental Defense Fund, Along With The Natural Resources Defense Council And The Sierra Club, Joined The Goverment Against The Farmers. “Parties who intervened below as defendants and appellees, also respondents here, are Natural Resources Defense Council, United Anglers of California, Save San Francisco Bay Association, Sierra Club, Bay Institute of San Francisco, Environmental Defense Fund, California Striped Bass Association, Trout Unlimited of California, Sacramento River Council, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Pacific Federation of Fisherman’s Associations; and The Wilderness Society.” (Brief for Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. as Respondents, Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005) (No. 03-1566))
EDF Argued That The Farmers Had No Right To Sue In The Case As Individuals. “A direct action by petitioners against the United States is inconsistent with the exclusive exchange of performance obligations between the bureau and the district.” (Brief for Natural Resources Defense Council, et al. as Respondents, Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596 (2005) (No. 03-1566))
Sounds like a great name for a rock band. But for governor, nahhhhhhhh. :-p
It sounds like an old Steve Allen joke.
Answer: “Meg Whitman and the Delta Smelt.”
Question: “Who had beans on the return flight?”
I wasn’t too thrilled about her to begin with, but this really does it.
Read the story of the Snail Darter to stop the Tellico Dam in Tennessee. It was a mission from UT to find anything to stop it from completion. Make sure the same tactic isn’t being used.
We have to dump the aged cupie doll.
There is so much to hate about her that it is hard to remember all of it.
Reminds me of Obama.
I seriously wonder what her and Mitt are even in politics for, it seems to be all about power, not anything more.
Wait till you see how little she voted or registered during her life
BTW the dam was completed and the surrounding area is very nice and suitable for all of the NE transplants. The guy in charge of the snail darter bullshit has since fessed up.
Isn’t there a rule that says if you are going to run as a certain party candidate; you should believe their beliefs?
She’s already lying. Can she be eliminated due to this?
Meg Whitman is a full blooded RINO.
Well, don’t worry, California will soon be cashing in from all that “Green” energy technology, the “Stimulus money” and rapid transit to Vegas.
This is the mark of true evil. Keep this critter out of office
You have it exactly right. Meg can only tarnish the Republican brand further.
I don’t like giving up on Callifornia, but it seems to be circling the drain anyway.
With the stimulus money, maybe they’ll build windmill farms up and down the barren valley to power Las Vegas.
I’m sure someone is working on that right now.
People are insane here!
Meg Whitman's charitable foundation, established ostensibly for charitable purposes, inexplicably gave at least $300,000 to the Environmental Defense Fund's Center For Rivers and Deltas. In 2007, Meg Whitman's foundation gave $100,000 to EDF. Not content with that amount, Meg Whitman doubled down in 2008 by donating $200,000. The water crisis is affecting jobs in the Central Valley, with most cities and towns hovering near a 15% unemployment rate. The EDF has continually sided with the fish over the farmers and Meg Whitman's $300,000 donation helped fund these efforts.Swimming with the sharks.
Whitman has an Ad going attacking Poizner for siding with Barbra Boxer on tax issues....not sure of the details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
