We knew Two-Gates had only been postponed, not stopped indefinitely. But we were hopeful that the project would be taken off the table when we heard from the USBR last week that (1) their scientific study to determine if there would be any positive effect on the Delta Smelt from the Two-Gates would take 2-3 years and (2) the final project would be very different from the initial Two-Gates plan and instead, if implemented, would take the needs of the local communities in mind. The revised plan would undoubtably cost a great deal of money to implement (especially if the “gates” are expensive locks) – an expensive “experiment.”
But as reported by RestoreTheDelta.org, the fact that Two-Gates has been put on-hold “makes Assemblymembers like Caballero, Arambula, and Fuller impatient. It makes ACWA, the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Agency, and the Metropolitan Water District impatient. It makes Westlands Water District very impatient.” They don’t care about the Delta (the environment or the communities who rely on it), they only care about extracting more water from the Delta even if that results in the Delta becoming a salty, polluted bog.
On Tuesday, May 11, the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife reviewed Assembly Joint Resolution AJR 38, proposed by Assemblymember Caballero. The resolution requests the U.S. Department of the Interior to prioritize the study of the Two-Gates Fish Protection Demonstration Project and implementation.
Mary Piepho represented the five Delta counties at the committee meeting voicing opposition to AJR 38. However, the committee still voted to approve an amended version. While the amended version removed some of the posturing and myths that were in the initial version (thanks, I’m sure, to Mary and the other Delta supervisor’s efforts), we still have a HUGE concern that instead of taking steps to really fix the state’s water issues, Westlands and others interested in privatizing and making a profit from re-selling water continue to push projects, like Two-Gates, that will not provide any true short-term solution to the water issues and will ultimately continue down the path of irreparable harm to the Delta.
The resolution is headed for votes by legislators.
Tell your representatives to oppose AJR 38 !
Even representatives that we know oppose Two-Gates benefit from continued feedback. It gives them more ammunition when voicing their constituents concerns.
For Discovery Bay:
- Assemblyperson Joan Buchanan: email assemblymember.buchanan@assembly.ca.gov
- State Sen. Mark DeSaulnier: email senator.desaulnier@senate.ca.gov and/or go to his website http://legplcms01.lc.ca.gov/PublicLCMS/ContactPopup.aspx?district=SD07.
- Governer Arnold: governor@governor.ca.gov and/or enter comment on his website http://gov.ca.gov/interact.
For other areas:
If you don’t know your representative, go to the League of Women Voter’s (LWV) site. It also gives hints on the best way to contact each (via email or website).
Sample Letter
SAMPLE INFORMATION TO SEND
(Be sure to replace [NAME] and [ADDRESS] with your name and address)
—————CUT HERE————————-
Please vote “NO” on Assembly Joint Resolution 38. Comments sent during the Two-Gates comment period identified that the project was an ill-conceived “experiment”, was unlikely to protect Delta Smelt, and would have major detrimental effects on local communities. Two-Gates would cost a great deal of money to study and implement, money better spent on real initiatives to reverse the damage done by excessive water exporting and other stressors on the Delta.
Instead of wasting money on more experiments that will negatively effect the Delta, please spend money to research the amount of water required for a healthy Delta, the amount of water that can be safely exported and a balanced state plan to address any additional water needs from other sources (desalinization, agricultural conservation, etc.)
Sincerely,
[NAME]
[ADDRESS]
Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) 
(via Email)
Since the money was allocated to begin fixing the levees over two years ago I can find no evidence of anything being done. Do you know anything about this?, or where to find out why nothing has been started?
Sincerely, Chet Loveland
The two Gates project is a sound idea, working to meet the goals of both sides of this issue. Not supporting AJR 38 is an error.
Not sure who your ‘both sides’ are. I bet you are referring to the “co-equal goals” of the BDCP – Environment and Exporters.
But the ‘side’ left out of that equation are the Delta Communities. Two Gates is NOT good for the South Delta, for communities like Discovery Bay who rely on open waterways for boating – both recreation and safety. There’s lots of information in the pages of this website why Two Gates poses significant risk to our economy and our way of life. Plus it’s a hung jury whether it will help the smelt or harm them.
That sounds like it’s not a “sound idea” to me. As the KQED segment on “Saving the Bay” scientist said, we keep doing experiments to try to reverse the negative effects of the prior experiment.
Let’s not do another experiment that has such adverse effects on the communities and people who live on the Delta. Instead, let’s find a good solution to getting the pumps turned back on and solving the state’s water problems. Two gates is NOT that solution.
(Via Email)
I don’t think they have ever stopped working on the two-gate project. If you go to the end of Byron Highway (N), there is a big sign Contra Costa Water District work site. When I go down to Holland Riverside Marina I can hear and see a lot of construction equipment working in the area. Not visible from the water often, everything is being kept behind the levee.
My other concern is why isn’t the levee money for repairs being being used. The money was released two years ago, and I do not see anything being done. Are they waiting for other projects like two-gate to be completed before they start?
If someone has a small plane it worth taking a fly-over to see what is going on.
Sincerely , Chet Loveland
Has anyone thought about putting forth a bill that would make it illegal to sell off excess water rights? If you cannot use your rights the escess reverts back to environmental flow or some such public use. I don’t have any political savy at all ( I would be the first voted off Survivor Island). But it seems that research into water rights is the way to start. It is probably something like our treaties with the Indians, non breakable. But, possibly something like Eminent Domain could be used for the good of all citizens. Is going to take legal experts far more knowledgible than I am.