Hope for the future ?

[David Lee]

Out spent ?? We'll see ....

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101123/A_NEWS/101129979/-1/RSS02

D.~

[Mrs.Finsallaround]

Hmmmm.... that's interesting 8)

[David Lee]

Here's an expanded version from today , lots more detail -

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101124/A_NEWS/11240323/-1/rss02

D.~

[Hairstacker]

David, thanks for sharing this expanded version. Westlands reminds me of a brat that is used to getting its way but is now being told no. I don't know how you see it but I see them burning at least one of their federal bridges as a positive development.

[Darian]

Articles on this have appeared in the SacBee and The SF Chronicle over the last two days, too. Interesting stuff but still sounds like Westlands didn't get what they wanted out of the feds, are taking their money and going home. Seems those that reported on this think it's a power play. :|

As an aside (but pertinent) is the constant challenging of validity of the science involved by Westlands and the reaction of federal/state agencies in response. These agencies always seem to bow to the wishes of Westlands and Roll International, etc. I wondered why they responded that way for some time until I found an obscure federal law titled the Data Quality Act, AKA: Information Quality Act. This bit of federal legislation was added to an appropriations bill in 2001 and is two sentences in length. In essence, it allows anyone (spell that business) to challenge any scientific finding/report that they disagree with based on the quality of the data/info included and requires the authoring agency to respond by verifying it's own findings. Of course, this creates a circular, never ending process of reporting, challenging, examination and reporting, another challenge, etc., ad nauseum. I've gotta give the Devil his due here; what better way to stop government in its tracks than to create this process.... :puke: