Texans Fight Over Whooping Cranes, Water Rights

DALLAS—A coalition of environmentalists, bird lovers and Gulf Coast municipalities sued Texas regulators in federal court this past week, accusing them of mismanaging waters necessary for the survival of the biggest flock of endangered ... Full Story »

Posted by Lauren Santoro
Tags Help
Stats Help
# Diggs: 1 (as of 2010-03-26)
# Tweets: 12 (as of 2010-03-26)
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Lauren Santoro - Mar 26, 2010 - 5:36 AM PDT
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Lauren Santoro - Mar 26, 2010 - 5:48 AM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Lauren Santoro
3.8
by Lauren Santoro - Mar. 26, 2010

This article is very well balanced in that it simply explains what is occurring in Texas between the Aransas Project and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Members of both groups were quoted or cited, as well as a member of the Fish and Wildlife Service. The author does not sway toward one side or another, but tells the facts and leaves it up to the reader to decide which Texan group is right in this debate. The article relates somewhat to the overall picture regarding the migration of birds, power plants, and climate change, but is not the pain point of the article.

Since the author does not choose sides in reporting, it has left me believing that both sides are trying to find reasons to blame each other. The Aransas Project blames Texas regulators for the death of the birds, and the Texas regulators displace that argument, and claim the people of the Aransas Project are just mad about the nuclear power plant. They never directly say that the death of the cranes is NOT due to their activity, but that the anger over it is not justified. This ... More »

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Max Haller
4.6
by Max Haller - Apr. 4, 2010

the article does a good job of reporting what's going on in Texas with out taking sides. Both parties were given a fair chance to give their side of what's happening. Its a very factual article.

See Full Review » (4 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

4.1

not enough reviews
from 2 reviews (9% confidence)
Quality
4.0
Facts
5.0
Fairness
5.0
Information
4.0
Insight
1.0
Style
5.0
Context
3.0
Depth
4.0
Expertise
4.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
4.1
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
5.0
# Reviews
1.0
# Views
3.8
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!