Archive for January, 2013

Why isn’t anyone looking at desalinization as part of the plan?

Save the California Delta Alliance submitted a formal set of comments in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Delta Plan. A contingent of concerned citizens traveled to Sacramento Thursday January 24 to show their concern and present comments at the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) hearing. We told them about our community and boating concerns and questioned why the DSC is not reviewing alternatives to the BDCP/Peripheral Canal.

Various alternatives have been proposed including Dr. Pyke’s concept for a new intake at Sherman Island or restructuring the current location with state-of-the-art fish screens. Or better still, options which avoid removing additional water from the Delta by leveraging the millions of acre feet of water now diverted into the flood control structures on the Sacramento River north of the proposed point of diversion or the Tulare Lake Basin Restoration proposals.

It seems obvious any alternative should include desalinization plants to improve regional self-sufficiency for the Central and Southern portions of the state.

The position the Delta Stewardship Council has taken is that they are responsible for guidelines protecting the Delta and the Bay and Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is responsible for the Tunnel project. The DSC says therefore they are only responsible for reviewing the BDCP proposal. That doesn’t make sense to us. That leaves no one in the state looking for better alternatives than exporting even more water out of the Delta after the current level of exports have sent the environment into crisis mode. The BDCP’s plan will increase salinity, deteriorate our water quality, impact the fish and waterfowl. We think the Council can and should evaluate the merits and feasibility of various options.

There are many options much better than huge twin tunnels. One of our Discovery Bay residents, a prior engineer, has offered a new variation that has some unique ideas. I think his ideas combine the best of the best solutions and would save our Delta from the damage we all know would result if the twin tunnels (aka Peripheral Canal) is built.

———————————————–
This is Eric Jensen from Discovery Bay.
My background is in Engineering with my last 20 years at Hewlett-Packard.

I have studied the water problem that faces California and have come up with a solution that will benefit all Californians.

Water solution:
1) Cancel the twin tunnels and instead spend the money to build large desalinization plants inland, close to the existing canal infrastructure. Run them full time, with the excess water being sold to Arizona and Nevada or even further inland.
2) Create water storage solutions for Southern and even Central California [Store excess in Lake Mead, restore the Tulare Lake Basin, replenish ground water]
3) Improve the existing pumps by installing numerous large self cleaning fish filters, saving millions of fish from death at the pumps. This type of filter already exists, you can see one in use near the intersection of Bixler and Denali in Discovery Bay or I can send you photos that I have taken.

Why this the best solution:
1) This eliminates the “all your eggs in one basket” twin tunnel concept, because it prevents the drought situation that is inevitable (look at Kansas wheat today or the Mayan civilization that perished in an extended drought).
2) Population throughout California will continue to increase, as will the need for water. We do not need a different distribution of the existing water, we need more water.
3) Allows for storage of excess water when California has an excess rainfall.

Results:
1) Yes, water will cost more, but the cost will be shared by all Californians not just those using the more expensive per acre foot desalinized water. Selling the excess water will lower Californians cost.
2) We have purchased an “insurance policy” that California will have water during drought, not just for now, but for it’s future generations.
3) With the improved fish filters, the existing pumps can safely send less expensive water south when water is available or to storage during excess years.
4) We have created more water, not fought over the distribution of existing water that will disappear in an extended drought that is inevitable.

Hope you like the concept, thanks,

Eric Jensen

—————————-
References:
Dr. Pyke’s Open Letter August 28, 2012
January 9, 2013 – Dr. Pyke’s Addendum to the Proposal

Lack of Alternatives being Considered

One of the big complaints of the Delta Plan and related processes for “fixing” the Delta is the lack of alternatives being evaluated and presented.

The current plan being advocated by Gov. Brown and the BDCP is the huge massive twin tunnels to export 4 million gallons of water per hour from the Sacramento River to send South which would move the water around the Delta instead of flowing through it. The amount of water the tunnels could remove is basically all of the fresh water from the Sacramento River which would leave the Delta farms and communities surrounded only by brackish, stagnant water – not exactly an environmentally friendly situation.

Mary Piepho, Contra Costa County Supervisor, expressed her concerns last week in a KCBS San Francisco Radio Interview.

Contra Costa Supervisor Worries Gov’s Plan Would Divert Too Much Water To SoCal


“Brown’s nearly $24 billion tunnel system would divert water from farmland and cities.” “They’re focusing on the delta specifically to resolve greater statewide problems. The delta simply does not have the supply, the capacity or the ecosystem to withstand that sort of pressure,” Piepho said. Click here to read the entire article and hear the radio interview first-hand.

This week environmental groups proposed an alternative to the two massive tunnels called the “‘Portfolio-Based’ Single Peripheral Tunnel Proposal” which would export less water than the BDCP plan and still pump some water from the existing Tracy pumps in the South Delta. While this does result in some fresh water flowing through the Delta, Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) does not deem that as a viable alternative since it means exporting more water from the already stressed Delta.

The Restore the Delta response to the Single Tunnel Proposal was “We maintain that the best way to restore the Delta is to improve levees to the highest standard, to add habitat to those wide upgraded levees, to restore flows in and through the Delta, to screen the existing pumps properly, in addition to promoting regional self-sufficiency for water development in other parts of the state. If the existing pumps at Tracy remain in use, and a 3000 cfs tunnel is added at Hood, the total export capacity from the Delta would remain at 6 million acre feet. You cannot restore the Delta by taking that much water out of it.”

STCDA response to the Delta Plan calls for the Delta Stewardship Council to consider other alternatives besides the massive tunnels which to-date have been the sole focus of Governor Brown and the BDCP. Thursday the Contra Costa County Supervisors formally called for a wider range of options to be studied.

There are better alternatives. STCDA suggests evaluating better use of spring water runoff, which now overflows into the Yolo Bypass and various Weirs and is not recovered, and instead piping it south to re-charge central valley aquifers. A new proposal has been suggested to build a reservoir on Sherman Island in the West Delta and pipe water from there to the Tracy pumps, thus allowing the fresh water to first flow through the Delta. Proposals have long existed to restore the Tulare Lake basin. And of course water conservation, retiring toxic farmlands that leach salt and selenium, and a plan for regional self-sufficiency seem like the most obvious first steps.

Destroying the Delta can’t be the only alternative for the state’s water issues.

Don’t forget to Save the Date for the STCDA Town Hall Meeting on Delta Water including a free showing of Restore the Delta’s acclaimed movie “Over Troubled Waters.”

Recent and Upcoming Events

Governor’s Big Mistake

Last week SFGate publishes article “Governor’s Delta Plan is a Big Mistake”.

It’s a great article. Concise. A must-read.

Delta Plan Comment Period Ends

Thanks to everyone who submitted comments to the Delta Plan! We all have concerns from making sure that our home values are protected, our boating access assured, local farmers and businesses are not impacted and the environment maintained.

STCDA’s legal council submitted Rulemaking comments for the Delta Plan finding the Delta Plan inadequate since it does not take account of the peripheral canal or provide the Council adequate criteria to assess the canal when it comes for approval and to insure adequate protection of the Delta after the canal goes into operation. Additional concerns are the Council’s decision to not study conveyance options/alternatives.

If the Delta Plan, which is supposed to be the regulatory document for Delta operations from now on, doesn’t consider the canal, which is the biggest threat to the Delta, then the Plan can’t be complete!

Lets Take our Message to the Delta Council!

Next week, Thursday January 24th is an important public hearing meeting for the Delta Stewardship Council to take additional public input on the Delta Plan Rulemaking procedures. STCDA representatives plan to attend and encourage all others who can to show up and demonstrate local concern for the Plan and process. Having faces in the room is a great way to make a strong impact! The meeting is from 9:30 – 11:30 AM at the Ramada Inn & Suites, 1250 Halyard Drive, West Sacramento, CA 95691 – see Delta Council public hearing. People are welcome to show up at the Boardwalk Grill 5879 Marina Road in Discovery Bay at 8 AM to grab a hot coffee and carpool together. See you there!


Carpool and Meeting Info

Issues with the Delta Plan versus the BDCP/Canal

Here are additional comments we recommend concerning the Delta Plan (final comments due tomorrow January 14th). If you concur with these or any of these, please send an email directly to cindy.messer@deltacouncil.ca.gov titled “Comments on Proposed Rulemaking”. These specifically address the issue that the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) continues to say the Delta Plan is “separate” from the BDCP and the Canal/Tunnels but can’t logically be separated. We think these are important bullet points that deserve attention.

To: cindy.messer@deltacouncil.ca.gov
Subject: Comments on Proposed Rulemaking – Final Draft Delta Plan

Some bullet points:
——————————————————————————–
The Council should include regulatory policies governing conveyance, including the peripheral canal, because we need you to be the judge of whether the canal harms the Delta. The water contractors are running the BDCP and we certainly can’t depend on them.

How can the Council decide what is good for the Delta when it doesn’t take account of the peripheral canal? The canal is the biggest threat to the Delta. Trying to build a plan to restore the Delta while ignoring the canal just doesn’t make sense.

We are opposed to the giant tunnels that the water contractors are pushing to drain the Delta. We understand that you have decided you don’t have any authority to determine if the tunnels are a threat to the Delta or not. How can this be? How can you be the chief protector of the Delta yet you don’t have any say so over the tunnels?

The Delta Plan says that you only have “contingent” authority over new conveyance facilities (AKA the GIANT tunnels). This makes no sense. You are responsible to see that the Delta is brought back to life. How can you accomplish your mission if you have to stand by and allow the water contractors to drain the Delta?

We understand that the State Water Resources Control Board is supposed to provide you with information about how much water must stay in the Delta and how much can be exported. But you have completed the Delta Plan before you even have that information. How can you say what is needed for the Delta when you don’t have the most basic scientific information?

How can you achieve the co-equal goal of restoring the Delta when you don’t even know how much water can safely be exported because the State Water Resources Control board hasn’t provide the required scientific information? Aren’t you putting the cart before the horse by going ahead with the Delta Plan when you don’t have this information?

Why doesn’t the Delta Plan discuss alternatives to the giant tunnels? What about Dr. Pyke’s concept for a smaller facility in the west Delta?

Why doesn’t the Delta Plan discuss the many alternatives to the giant tunnels submitted by many environmental groups?

Why does the Delta Plan assume that the only answer to California’s water needs is the Giant tunnel project? Shouldn’t you include in the regulations a range of alternatives that should be considered before deciding on the tunnels? What about the west Delta Intake Concept? What about harvesting flood waters from the Yolo Bypass or Sacramento Weir instead of taking water out of the Delta?

We think the regulations don’t make sense because they don’t say anything at all about how you will decide to approve or disapprove the giant tunnels. You’ve been at this for years. Surely by now you could have developed some regulatory criteria to judge the tunnel project. Please go back to the drawing board and come up with some regulations that have teeth.

Why don’t the regulations require the water contractors to consider a plan where they would harvest the millions of gallons of water that are wasted when the big storms come and the flow of the Sacramento River is diverted down the Yolo Bypass and over the flood control weirs into farmers fields. It make more sense to take this water than to drain the Delta.


Blog Stats

  • 127,723 hits

Support the STCDA

Sign up for Emails

Sign Up Now

Request a New Lawn Sign

Click Here to send an email to the lawn sign committee.

Receive news blog via email.

More Blogs

Educational Books about the Delta

Sassy the Salmon
and
The Fable of the Farmer and the Fish
All ages: K and above
Proceeds go to STCDA