<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A water agency for the 21st century: Can “Mother Met” become Met 2.0?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aquafornia.com/archives/15925/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aquafornia.com/archives/15925</link>
	<description>The California Water News blog!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:52 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Wayne Lusvardi</title>
		<link>http://aquafornia.com/archives/15925/comment-page-1#comment-23530</link>
		<dc:creator>Wayne Lusvardi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:30:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aquafornia.com/?p=15925#comment-23530</guid>
		<description>I can&#039;t believe that a &quot;Senior Policy Analyst&quot; with the National Resources Defense Council could write such a naive and romantic piece about some sort of restructuring of MWD.  To cut to the quick, what would be the tradeoffs for MWD1 morphing to MWD2? Conservation perhaps works on the macro level because new dams and reservoirs don&#039;t have to be built; but at the micro level conservation just depletes local aquifers resulting in more dependence on imported water supplies.  Moreover, new Smart Growth laws like AB 375 divert population growth to urban coastal cities where there is a dearth of indigenous water resources and away from inland exurbs where groundwater resources are greater.  Neither Barry Nelson&#039;s MWD1 nor his MWD2 models would change this.  Moreover, Nelson seems totally ignorant of such complicated issues as &quot;wheeling fees,&quot; the public perception problems of mixing treated waste water with imported water supplies in MWD pipeline system, etc.  In short, Nelson is all wet.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I can&#8217;t believe that a &#8220;Senior Policy Analyst&#8221; with the National Resources Defense Council could write such a naive and romantic piece about some sort of restructuring of MWD.  To cut to the quick, what would be the tradeoffs for MWD1 morphing to MWD2? Conservation perhaps works on the macro level because new dams and reservoirs don&#8217;t have to be built; but at the micro level conservation just depletes local aquifers resulting in more dependence on imported water supplies.  Moreover, new Smart Growth laws like AB 375 divert population growth to urban coastal cities where there is a dearth of indigenous water resources and away from inland exurbs where groundwater resources are greater.  Neither Barry Nelson&#8217;s MWD1 nor his MWD2 models would change this.  Moreover, Nelson seems totally ignorant of such complicated issues as &#8220;wheeling fees,&#8221; the public perception problems of mixing treated waste water with imported water supplies in MWD pipeline system, etc.  In short, Nelson is all wet.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

