Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

A great write-up in the December 2020 Bay & Delta Yachtsman magazine by Bill Wells on the latest “WaterFraud Update”

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requested comments on the Delta Conveyance Project plan to divert the Sacramento River around the Delta with a tunnel starting at Hood. Michael Brodsky, an attorney for the Save the California Delta Alliance submitted six pages of comments explaining why the project should be stopped. The Delta Chambers, Delta Legacy Communities and many other organizations and individuals submitted comments too, explaining what a bad idea the project is.

[NOTE: Here is Michael Brodsky’s six page letter sent to the ACOE plus all of the attachments.]

Here is an excerpt from Michael Brodsky’s comments, it will give you the idea of what is going on: “DWR has settled on two intakes, intakes #3 and #5, both located adjacent to the small low-income minority community of Hood. No alternative intake locations are considered or have been seriously considered. Please see Attachment 4 for a graphic depiction of intakes #3 and #5 looming over and dwarfing the small town of Hood. Attachment 4 was prepared for hearings on the former California WaterFix, but the location of intakes #3 and #5 has not changed. DWR believes that it has existing water rights at these locations and therefore its SWRCB process would be a Petition for a change in the point of diversion. If it locates the intakes anywhere else, its SWRCB process would be the initiation of a new water right, a somewhat higher bar to pass. This administrative convenience for DWR does not excuse the environmental justice atrocity being perpetrated on Hood. Hood will be destroyed by the multi-year construction activity needed to build these two intakes. The town will be largely abandoned and residents who remain will suffer irreparable harm. The injury to Hood and insult to principals of environmental justice is all the more acute because DWR recently concluded that intake #2 be eliminated from consideration because of the community impacts on the small town of Clarksburg. Attachment 5 is DWR’s statement of unacceptable impacts on Clarksburg with no mention of Hood. The impacts on Clarksburg were significant and unacceptable in their own right but less than on Hood. Clarksburg is more prosperous and more white than Hood and one wonders aloud, if the lesser impacts on Clarksburg were an unacceptable imposition on that community why are greater impacts being imposed on the less prosperous community of Hood acceptable to DWR? Intakes #3 and #5 must not be placed at these locations. They must be moved.

“The Application should be rejected for the reasons stated above. If not rejected out of hand, then a reasonable range of alternatives not considered by DWR should be included in the Corps-prepared EIS.”

Ironically the DWR recently sent a “Social Justice” survey out to many Delta Area taxpayers to see if they wanted a western alignment or a more easterly alignment of the tunnel. To me “Social Justice” would be to stop the project and use the billions of dollars saved to help get California’s economy going again.

Apparently, there is some skullduggery going on at the Stakeholder Engagement Committee. We keep hearing of “Community Development” funds that will become available to groups that support the tunnel. One fellow from the North Delta told us that there could be $150 million available if the community supported diverting the river. Another fellow from Bethel Island said that there could be $300 million available for tunnel supporters and only maybe $5 million available if the tunnel is not supported. Other SEC members are tightlipped about the funds. An attorney friend of mine says this sounds a lot like Quid Pro Quo and possibly illegal. I am sure we will be finding out more about this in the future.

His complete article about other Delta happenings is here: Bay & Delta Yachtsman Magazine.