Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

Today’s article in the Sacramento Bee is titled, “Winter Salmon Run Decimated.”

This is awful – but not unanticipated. But the article illustrates how the farmers continue to ignore the real problem and keep saying it’s the farmer versus the fish – clearly they don’t understand The Fable of the Farmer and the Fish.

The state started nailing the coffin for the salmon when they moved all of the water from the Northern CA reservoirs south, “assuming” it wasn’t really the start of a multi-year drought. Letting farmers on the west side continue to expand, expand, expand and having no rules for how many acres elsewhere were converted from line crops to almonds has brought California to this.

“Chinook salmon are among the hardiest, most robust fish that we know of,” said Jon Rosenfield, a biologist with the nonprofit Bay Institute. “Even if you don’t care about fish, the fact that Chinook salmon can’t survive in the Sacramento River is a testament to how poorly we treat our rivers.”

The article illustrates the problem the state has a with water. The fact is that way too much water was being taken out of the Delta even back in 2009, impacting Northern California farmers, water quality (causing tons of invasive weeds in our waterways), as well as fish.

Yet from the farmers’ perspective, the fish can’t be saved anyway so they should still get all the water that exists and more. They continue to try to make it an argument of the farmer versus the fish. That isn’t correct. It’s about a valuable resource in Northern California being decimated for profit.

The state need to start asking questions about how many crops we can support, and on what land, and stop the “paper water” overcommitment of resources.

See the entire article here.

REMINDER

– California WaterFix Comments Due Friday, Oct 30, by 5 PM

STCDA prepared a list of comments to help focus on the key concerns about the California Water Fix (aka Delta Tunnels). The list is included below for your convenience.

To comment on the California WaterFix plan, email BDCPComments@icfi.com (Note: This will also send STCDA a copy for safekeeping to our NoDeltaGates site – optional).

For where to send comments by regular email and for comment suggestions, Click Here.

My personal top concerns are (1) the effects of the construction through the Delta for YEARS and (2) the likely disastrous effect of tunnels if managed incorrectly (the same way our reservoirs were managed incorrectly during the start of this four-year drought when too much water was shipped south).

So I really like comment #6, which points out how the agencies haven’t been managing the system correctly now, and comment #8 which argues that, if built, the alternative to route the tunnels far east, by I-5, should replace the current route.

But add everything that expresses your concerns or others from you past comments on the prior plan, etc. For more information, go to our BDCP Tab. On the site are also other links to Jim Frasier’s comments and past comments/concerns about the prior plan.

Comment topic suggestions. Phrase your comments “I am opposed to the Delta Tunnels because:”

1. The benefits do not match the cost. According to Dr. Jeff Michael, University of the Pacific, the estimated benefits for the project drop by $10 billion without regulatory assurance for water deliveries so that costs EXCEED benefits by at least $8 billion. The costs will be born by farmers and urban ratepayers. Since there is no added water, urban ratepayers obtain no benefit.
2. The rural and urban rate payers should be notified of the expected rate increases and vote approval, like any tax increase.
3. If farmers must pay for more costly water, they have stated they will need to convert to profitable crops like almonds to ship to Asia. Californians will not have fresh produce on their own tables.
4. The tunnels do not provide for any additional water in a drought after prior water rights and public trust needs are met. During many years, they are likely to be dry. Other alternatives do produce more water.
5. The California WaterFix does not help reduce reliance on Delta imports as mandated by the 2009 Delta Reform Act.
6. San Francisco Bay-Delta business, tourism, fishing, and farming communities cannot trust that the tunnels will be operated in a manner to protect our interest, especially because the State Water Resources Control Board, the Department of Water Resources, and the Bureau of Reclamation have allowed for the waiving and weakening of Delta water quality standards and species protections during the drought, endangering numerous Delta species and bringing some to the precipice of extinction.
7. The California EcoRestore is not part of the California WaterFix. Hence the California WaterFix does not meet the coequal goals required by the 2009 Delta Reform Act. Even if the EcoRestore were included, it does little more than meet the existing mitigation for prior damage, and does not mitigate for the new damage that will be caused by tunnel construction and by removing water that otherwise would flow through Delta.
8. The route selected is the worst alternative that could be selected since it does not protect Delta farm communities and Delta recreation as required by the 2009 Delta Reform Act. It is only the cheapest. A construction project through the heart of the Delta, through the sensitive estuary and loud pounding through bird habitats for years is not the way to protect the fish or fowl. Instead, the alternative to route the tunnels far east, by I-5, should replace the current route.
9. Construction plans include de-watering Delta farmers’ wells for years, making farming and living in their homes not possible. Yet there is no provision to provide renumeration to them.
10. Barges and construction for years through recreational waterways is not the way to protect Delta recreation. The route to save the estuary, would be to route the tunnels far East, by I-5.

Help Stop the Delta Tunnels! Please send in your comments about the California Water Fix (aka Delta Tunnels) now. Even if you have sent some before, it’s fine to send more.

Attached are some bullet points to help you write comments. Please BCC to our noDeltaGates email box below so we have a copy, since the BDCP has been refusing to post comments on-line as they are supposed to do.

To comment on the California WaterFix plan itself, email BDCPComments@icfi.com (Note: This will also send STCDA a copy for safekeeping to our NoDeltaGates site – optional).

COMMENTS DUE BY OCTOBER 30th.

Bullet Points are at: https://nodeltagates.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/bullet-points.pdf

The Delta Independent Science Board has completed its review of the California WaterFix EIR/EIS. The entire review is attached.

The ISB report says the EIR/EIS “contains a wealth of information but lacks completeness and clarity in applying science to far-reaching policy decisions.” In other words, all those pages and pages and pages yet still lacks the required detail and information.

In particular, “Details about the adaptive-management process, collaborative science,” etc. That “adaptive-management” is where the whole thing hinges. The state keeps saying, “Trust us. We’ll manage the tunnels appropriately and not take more water than we should.” Yet, as we all know, that has not been the case in the past. For ten or twenty years they have extracted more water than the system could support, causing the salmon and other fish populations to crash. During the drought they moved way to much water from the North to the South and now the reservoirs in the North are at their lowest points ever, threatening community drinking water and upstream salmon hatcheries while the L.A. reservoirs are still full. With that history, no one should trust them.

The report lists failure to demonstrate “Due regard for several aspects of habitat restoration … and the strategy of avoiding damage to existing wetlands,” and insufficient analysis including the “effects of the proposed project on San Joaquin Valley agriculture.”

Plus, importantly, no comparison of the proposed alternatives.

The summary concludes with, “These interdependent issues of statewide importance warrant an environmental impact assessment that is more complete, comprehensive, and comprehensible than the Current Draft.”