Felix Smith, the whistleblower on the bird deformities at the Kesterson National Wildlife Refuge back in the 1980s, has filed a complaint with the State Water Board over the continued irrigation of high selenium soils in the Western San Joaquin Valley. He wants the water board to declare irrigation of these tainted soils an unreasonable use of water under California law. He is joined in his complaint by the California Salmon and Steelhead Assocation. The Water Board has asked the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which supplies Northern California to federal irrigation districts farming the high selenium soils, to explain what is being done to solve the selenium crisis, now in its third decade. The Bureau of Reclamation recently replied to the Water Board's inquiry. See if you can spot the flaws in the Bureau of Reclamation's arguments that the problem is being solved. Here is the Bureau's response: CLICK HERE [1]
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
| USBR Delta Comlaints Response.pdf [1] | 120.27 KB |
Links:
[1] http://www.lloydgcarter.com/files_lgc/USBR Delta Comlaints Response.pdf
[2] http://www.bickellawfirm.com/
[3] http://brt-insights.blogspot.com/2006/09/river-conservation-subtopic.html
Most Americans ingest large
Most Americans ingest large amounts of Selenium because soil in much of the country contains high levels that are absorbed by crops. Selenium occurs naturally in soil and leaches onto farm fields from irrigation and streams. A link between diabetes and selenium initially was reported in 2007, based on results of people tested between 1988 and 1994 as part of the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Since then, average selenium levels in the country have increased by 9 percent. Also in 2007, a large clinical trial in which people were given selenium tablets to see if it reduced their cancer risk was discontinued after they experienced a high diabetes rate.
Thanks,
http://www.floridalemonlawattorneys.com/
Thanks for posting the
Thanks for posting the Bureau's response
Thanks for posting the
Thanks for posting the Bureau's response. I see what you mean by flaws.
please interpret what is going on in plain English
NO, I cannot spot the flaws in the arguments. I do not understand lawyer language or bureaucratic language. Perhaps you can explain the history and current perspective on these issues in language that ordinary people can understand.
Thanks !!