Archive for July, 2013

Tunnel Damage – They won’t just go “Under” the Delta

The current configuration of the old “Peripheral Canal” project is now being sold as underground tunnels. The “Peripheral Canal” in 1982 was a plan to build an above-the-ground canal around the Delta near Stockton somewhat where the current BDCP map below shows their so-called “Eastern Alignment” (in green). The PC project was a bad plan because it removed fresh water before it flowed through the Delta and was voted down by a wide margin. The new Tunnel Project is even worse.

The 1982 Peripheral Canal, besides removing much needed fresh water from the Delta, would have had the same pumping intakes that now threaten the lovely communities along the Sacramento River like Clarksburg, Hood, Courtland. However, the old PC would have preserved many of the scenic central waterways (although they would have still ended up filled with brackish salt water and dead fish).

Fast forward to 2013 and the “Peripheral Tunnels” are the current project plan. These tunnels are still referred to as the “Peripheral Tunnels” because they do all of the environmental damage the Peripheral Canal would have imposed. However, they have an even worse effect on the scenic Delta itself. During construction, waterways will be ripped up, the noise of pile drivers 24×7, barges and construction will make it hard for boaters to enjoy a peaceful outing and even harder for birds and wildlife to remain in the area.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) proposing the new tunnel project studied three alignments as shown in the map below. Besides the Eastern Alignment, a “Western Alignment” that would have gone somewhat around the Delta although I don’t know the impact on Rio Vista and other scenic towns in that area and a through-the-middle “Central Alignment.” Instead of a Canal, they plan to go 150 feet below the Delta. But don’t feel placated that it means less impact to the scenic beauty. The construction is not all “below” the Delta because to build the tunnels requires creating a swath of construction destruction from Hood to the Clifton Court Forebay. The “chosen” alignment is the Central Alignment.

For Delta farmers, boaters and people in the South Delta, the worst choice was the “Central Alignment.” When it was an above-the-ground canal, the plan was to cement-wall in the entire core of the Delta including Mildred Island – virtually wiping out boating in the South Delta. This was for many the worst choice albeit the shortest. Because if the state is trying to preserve the scenic beauty of the Delta, as stated in the Delta Plan, then building cement walls down the middle was a disastrous idea. Some felt appeased hearing that instead of a canal, the new plan was tunnels going “beneath” the Delta. But that is a misconception.

They won’t go under the Delta and leave it’s scenic beauty unharmed. No – the construction project will rip up the entire central portion for 10-20 years and leave smelly tunnel muck in it’s wake.

These new tunnels create all of the environmental damage the canal would have done plus the construction project will destroy numerous scenic waterways including half of the scenic waterways in the South Delta. Huge barges – football size – will be constructed along the 35 mile stretch. Pile driving 24×7, lights, power lines – right next to the Hilton fireworks display area where traditionally thousands of boats anchor out for a week of festivities around the July 4th event which will cause boaters to look elsewhere than boating for that holiday for years. Similarly Mildred Island anchorage will be disrupted with a football size dock next to it, pile driving, lights. It is unlikely that the hundreds of boats, if they can even get into the anchorage, will want to gather there for the big weekends and events such as the Labor Day SeaRay “circle” of over 100 boats each year. When summer weekends and holidays don’t attract boaters to the marinas, businesses will suffer, people will move away.

Delta farmers are threatened from all sides. Many are being told the state can take away their family farms by eminent domain for habitat projects. Some of their farms are planned as tunnel muck sites which would totally destroy their lands, homes and facilities. And for many others still able to keep their farms, the plans to move and close roads needed to get their produce to market will put them out of business.

Melinda Terry, manager of the North Delta Water Agency and participant on the BDCP panels, describes the construction horror in detail in a recent video and write-up in the Central Valley Business Times.

Very little information is offered by the BDCP about why the Central Alignment is the chosen alignment. Perhaps since it’s a bit shorter there’s a cost advantage. But if you are trying to protect a scenic wonderland you don’t put a 10-15 year construction project through it’s heart. If you wanted to restore the Yosemite Valley, would you dig up the floor for 10 years? Bring in power lines, lights, pile drivers 24 x 7? Scare away all of the native species? Of course not.

Yet this is what the Delta Plan is allowing due to its lack of real requirements about what projects need to do to “save” the Delta.

More on the BDCP July 17 Meeting

“Stop the Tunnel” protesters are being seen in many press article pictures covering the BDCP meeting. A very comprehensive article released yesterday in Maven’s Notebook.

Protesters outside the meeting – view Maven’s Notebook to view more photos

Here, Maven provides an extensive transcript of the first half of the meeting. Sections I find enlightening are Jason Peltier’s (Westlands Water District representative) viewpoints. He totally ignores that fact that because water contracts in California are for 2 to 5 times the amount of water in the estuary and that Westlands only has the lowest tier rights, of course they will NEVER get 100%. He ignores the fact is that his area’s farmers allocations will run from 0% (dry years like 2013) up to maybe 60% of their full contracts (very wet years). I’m not sure what the original concept was when these contracts were issued but if you have the lowest level rights for excess water and your contract is for more water than exists, it seems irresponsible to plan for 100% and assume that there will never be a drought or dry water years. Yet his viewpoint is that their contracts are being “cut … reallocated or reserved to the environment.” As long as there is no acceptance that the amount of water in the Delta is finite, they will obviously continue to take more and more (as they have done the past 20 years increasing almond acreage) until there is no water left.

Related is today’s article that water use is skyrocketing by Tehachapi County farmers due to increased agricultural footprint in that area: Tehachapi News “Water Use Skyrockets”. It seems so irresponsible to continue to expand agricultural acreage in the Central Valley when there already is not enough water in the Delta for the acreage expansions from over the past 10-20 years. Which circles back to the clear fact that any plan needs to start with clarity about how much water is needed to maintain a healthy Delta (i.e., the “Delta Flows”) versus can be exported (the “excess”) and plan from there.

I always find comments by Melinda Terry, North Delta Water Agency worthwhile in these BDCP meetings. In Maven’s Notebook, read Melinda Terry’s comments during the BDCP meeting about the “Funding and Benefits Assumptions” and especially further down under “Questions and Answers Part 2 – Equal Time for Delta Impacts”. Take time to read everything Melinda Terry says there because she points out the real negative impacts that will occur from the construction destruction up and down the Delta to communities, farmers and boating which the BDCP is ignoring.

I also always appreciate Bob Wright, Friends of the River’s comments: “ … This is simply not a permittable project under the endangered species act. To say that taking those kinds of quantities of fresh water away from those fish, including the winter and spring run Chinook salmon, would not adversely modify their critical habitat does not pass the laugh out loud test. … “ Plus Dr. Jeff Michaels, UOP, always provides logical economic input and takes the BDCP to task: “… without a cost allocation, how can you evaluate financial feasibility?” And Dr. Michaels questioned why the tunnel alternative was chosen when “… the through-Delta alternative performed better for all the fish species, which is what this is supposed to be about.”

Maven’s report quits before the great comments by the fellow in the yellow shirt from the American River who tells Jason Peltier to stop saying it’s “between fish and farmers” because the truth is that it’s “people versus people” and his other interesting remarks including that it’s real people, communities, farmers in the Delta are being affected, not just fish. Mike McCleery, Discovery Bay, commented on how from his experience in the commercial sector, the BDCP’s low return-on-investment even before inflation and overruns makes it an unreasonable project to pursue from a financial standpoint; how no Delta levee has ever fallen down during an earthquake, even in 1906; and asked why Dr. Pyke’s proposed newer technology of permeable layers could not be used at Clifton Court Forebay to protect fish to allow continuance of the current through-Delta option rather than add any new tunnels. Michael Brodsky, STCDA Legal Council, caught the panel in a previous misstatement: their claim that environmental protection would be available even after a take permit was issued because the permit could be withdrawn later if the agencies did not manage pumping operations effectively and that permits have been withdrawn in the past. Brodsky’s research revealed that according to Fish & Game, no take permit has ever been revoked in California and the example stated at the previous BDCP meeting was erroneous. Brodsky also re-iterated and expanded on his objection to the BDCP “adaptive management” structure and why it cannot protect the co-equal goals as long as water contractors like Peltier have veto power. From Peltier’s statements made earlier in the meeting Peltier clearly does not believe that fish need fresh water. Thus the logical assumption is that Westlands would always use its veto power along every step of the process which would negate any objections made by Fish & Game or others trying to protect the salmon.

Webcast of the entire meeting.

Earlier Press pixs about the protest:
Original Channel 3 write-up and video: http://www.kcra.com/news/discovery-bay-residents-protest-twin-tunnel-project/-/11797728/21024494/-/127pxic/-/index.html

A bad day at the office for Jason Peltier greeted by protesters outside the BDCP Meeting (includes video): http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=23838

Discovery Bay got “On the Bus”

The Discovery Bay’s “Get On the Bus” event filled the bus plus got great TV coverage – thanks to Melinda Meza and KCRA Sacramento Channel 3 for showing up at both Discovery Bay and Sacramento! Amanda Dove and her kids did a great job on camera. See more from KCRA TV.

The DWR rep Nancy Vogel who was also interviewed by KCRA gave the party line that the BDCP is going to “restore the habitat” even though WE all know the main thing fish need is fresh water and that is what the BDCP plan will be removing.

The construction project, tunnel muck, and lack of fresh water will seriously impact all Delta communities and Delta farmers. Let alone the poor farmers who’s farms are being threatened to be taken away by eminent domain.

It was great to see Discovery Bay getting notice on TV because for us, like the rest of the people living in the Delta area, it’s about our way of life on the Delta.

Getting on the bus (photo by KCRA)


Even the kids came out to protest (photo by KCRA)


Discovery Bay citizens outside the BDCP meeting (photo by R. Wisdom, DB Press)


“Stop the Tunnels” signs line the BDCP meeting walls (photo by R. Wisdom, DB Press)

CalTrans’ Sign Removal

CalTrans workers have been removing “Stop the Tunnels” signs from private property near highways. (Note: This does not affect our home lawn signs unless they are on a state highway). Our STCDA legal council is reviewing the legality of CalTrans’ actions.

A Rio Vista paper, the River News-Herald, ran a hilarious cartoon about the sign confiscation caper:


The story came to light when a farmer who was displaying “Stop the Tunnel” signs on his private property on Highway 160 called Restore the Delta to report the “theft”. Originally, CalTrans sited a Code section regarding removal of political signs which raised the question why these would be considered “political” signs when the regulation quoted by CalTrans says a “temporary political sign” is a sign that encourages a particular vote in a scheduled election. No doubt the tunnels are a political issue, but the state plans to build them without a public or legislative vote. Later CalTrans quoted Business and Professions Codes sections 5403, 5405 and 5405.3 which may have some relevance although we wonder why CalTrans leaves the big, annoying Westlands and agribusiness farm signs such as “Congress-Created Dust Bowl” that have been along I-5 for years by tunnel supporters. Obviously the cartoon creator has the same question in mind and provides his answer to the question.

We will let you know when we find out if this action is even legal.

The debacle also caught the attention of Alex Breitler, RecordNet: Caltrans’ sign removal irks Delta backers.

Let us know if you want your own “Save our Delta/Stop the Tunnels” sign by clicking on the “Display a Lawn Sign” link on the right.


Blog Stats

  • 127,721 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