Add comment on:State and federal agencies suppress dissent on twin tunnels
Conservation, community and fishing organizations today called on the Brown administration to stop the undemocratic suppression of opposing viewpoints on the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the peripheral tunnels. Friends of the River, the Environmental Water Caucus, and Restore the Delta submitted a formal Demand letter to the State and Federal agencies demanding that they immediately commence posting all comment letters on the BDCP web site as they are received. Natural Resources Agency Secretary John Laird and others have repeatedly claimed that the BDCP development process would be "fair, open, and transparent." The posting of comments on the BDCP web site was the agencies’ only real demonstration of that promise. Last month, however, that ended, the groups revealed. According to the website: “In order to maintain the integrity of the formal public review period, incoming correspondence will not be available via the website beginning December 13, 2013 through the close of the public comment period April 14, 2014.” (http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/ library/Correspondence.aspx.) That announcement followed a sentence, which stated that “The BDCP encourages public participation.” It is clear that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels, just like the parallel Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) Initiative to create alleged "marine protected areas" in California waters, is anything but a "fair, open and transparent " process. Both the tainted MLPA Initiative process to create fake "marine protected areas" and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to build the twin tunnels have relied on the suppression of dissent and opposing opinions to accomplish the pre-determined goals pushed by corporate interests and state officials. Graphic of Jerry Brown courtesy of Red, Green and Blue.
Guidelines for commenting on news articles:
Thanks for contributing to Indybay's open publishing newswire. You may use any format for your response article, from traditional academic discourse to subjective personal account. Please keep it on topic and concise. And please read our editorial policy, privacy, and legal statements before continuing. Or go back to the article.