Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

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.

We are ordering more of our red & green “Stop the Tunnels!” signs seen in Discovery Bay and beyond!

We are happy to see that they have been springing up throughout Discovery Bay and beyond – along Highway 160 and up to Clarksburg, Hood, and Sacramento. Some have even been spotted in the Bay area and down south!

How can I get one?

Please click the “Display a Lawn Sign” link on the right side of the http://www.nodeltatunnels.com/ website or email “volunteers@nodeltagates.com”.

Include:

Your Name
Address
Phone #

so our volunteers can get you a sign. We are delivering in the Delta area but if you live elsewhere, please let our volunteers know if you can pick it up.

A small donation to cover the expenses is appreciated ($8.00) but not required. We are happy to have you display our signs and show your support for the cause. Together we can make a difference!

P.S. – More on the buses to Sacramento will be sent out soon for those of you who have volunteered to “Get on the Bus!” If you want your name added to the list to find out more details, please email “volunteers@NoDeltaGates.com”, include your name, address and phone # and say you want to “Get on the Bus!”

On May 14, the California Senate held a Joint Hearing by the Senate Natural resources and Water Committee and the Select Committee on The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta BDCP. Seven BDCP stakeholders were invited to speak including Metropolitan Water District, Westlands Water District, Sacramento County Representative, Contra Cost Water Representative, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) Representative among others.

Most interesting was the dichotomy between Jason Peltier, Westlands Water District, and the Doug Obegi, the NRDC Representative. Also noteworthy was the extent of angst expressed by the Sacramento County representative, Don Nottoli, while describing in detail how the tunnel construction destruction would affect the Delta residents, towns, waterways, farmers, etc. To hear the video recording, <a href="Joint Hearing by the Senate Natural resources and Water Committee and the Select Committee on The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta BDCP<a href="Click here.

Mr. Peltier described the massive BDCP document and defended the fact that in the BDCP there will be mistakes, errors, mis-statements and policy issues. Maps will change, analysis will evolve.

He went on to say that the BDCP will be kind of a living document in many ways. He felt that this body of work reflects our best use science as we know it and added “Some will say the science is inadequate. They are correct in that.”

Mr. Peltier then painted a picture of the Delta and ecosystem as so complex that no one could possibly know how it can or should function. He said that the body of Delta experts and scientists often don’t know what they see right in front of them. He commented on the “red flag” letters from the fish agencies and read an excerpt from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) comments and then replied to those comments as follows: “My translation of that [report] is a question – how has it, how is it and how will it function in the future – this Delta ecosystem? Is that at all possible for us to understand how this ecosystem works?” Then he criticized those agencies’ objections by saying “It’s been their responsibility for decades.”

Regarding the fish decline, Mr. Peltier offered, “It’s a combination of everything. We don’t know the answer. What we do know is the pump-centric regulatory operations have failed. We have 20 years of evidence to that end. That is why we want to take a comprehensive ecosystem approach. This may be too complex but the simplistic approach hasn’t produced results.”

[STCDA interjection – It isn’t the “simplistic approach” that has failed, it is the continued increase in export levels over the past years that has caused the Delta crisis.]

While Jason Peltier felt the Delta ecosystem was just too, too complicated for anyone to comprehend, Doug Obegi Staff Attorney for the NRDC had a much clearer view.

Mr. Obegi stated that the state has been solely focused on maximizing the exports from the Delta whereas most reports acknowledge we need to reduce exports from the Delta. That the current flows are not sustainable. As the SWRCB found in 2010, the current water flows are inadequate to confirm the public trust. We need to reduce reliance on the Delta and invest in alternatives. On the water supply side, the BDCP is not meeting the risks. Does it means more water from the Delta? Does it mean physical reliability? Ultimately we need to also make the existing pumps more reliable. We need to invest in alternatives. None of the alternatives in the BDCP include investments in local supplies, no investments in levee improvements. Mr. Obegi advocates the portfolio alternative supported by the 5 county supervisors.

[Note: The portfolio alternative proposed by the NRDC still includes a new northern intake, albeit only 3,000 CFS. STCDA still worries about the construction size and impacts of any new intake and resulting pipeline which may go directly through the Delta. Instead, new sources should be sought including the Tulare Lake Basin or other south-of-delta ground water recharge for the central valley and desalination for southern California coupled with increased conservation (agriculture in the desert as well as urban) and recycling.]

Mr. Obegi felt there is a better path than the BDCP is on – to reduce reliance on the Delta and invest in new sources, levees and a smaller conveyance. Massive investments in the Delta [tunnels] could constrain rate payers in funding conservation and recycling investments in their areas.

An interesting exchange between Mr. Peltier and Mr. Obegi during the question period further illustrated the issue. Mr. Peltier asked “A question for Doug who repeatedly advocates we need to reduce the water we get from the Delta. We’ve had 40, 60, 90% cutbacks. Is your vision 50,70, 100% cutbacks in the future? Is that the success for you?”

Mr. Obegi’s response again clarified that the BDCP is only focused on exporting water, not a big picture solution: “I don’t measure success by water supply from the Delta but how we invest in water conservation, etc. Even during years when Westlands has been cut back, the state exported all that water from the environment. The state increased their exports. The environment kind of got screwed and you [Westlands] kind of got screwed. Ultimately I think Westlands is in a tough spot. Part of why we included storage [in NRDC’s portfolio alternative] is we looked when Kern got surplus water but because Westlands doesn’t have storage it makes it difficult to have growers plan around it. If you had more south of Delta storage you’d be able to do [better planning]”.

Senator Fran Pavley asks the $64,000 question – “Why is it so hard to get the science right on the Delta Flows?

One answer was that it’s a moving target. Salmon spend 2, 3 or 4 years out in the ocean exposed to other factors. And you need several life cycles for statistical data to drive to a conclusion.

Doug Obegi counters “This is the best studied estuary in the world. The real challenge is that the biological science is less hard than the political science. Even the regulators in their private moments have concern that we can’t have a project that exports less than ‘fill in the blank’. ‘The documents put out by the BDCP have always been developed by the water contractors and their scientists.”

Jason Peltier, Westlands again disagreed with “Please don’t fall into the trap of looking for scientific certainty. We aren’t going to find it. I disagree with Doug that the scientists know what we need in terms of flow. I totally disagree with that.”

Sen. Pavley added “I was struck by the editorial that the PPIC survey by top independent scientists who supposedly have expertise in Delta issues and 80 percent of them felt that flows was the major issue and [on the other hand] the exporters in general were mostly looking at invasive species or ammonia or some other reasons why the flow doesn’t need to be the primary reason. It seems too many red flags are going up that we are going to have to approach the delta flow question.”

Lois Welk adds that unless the Delta stakeholders are at the table there will be no resolution to the problem. In the past there have been no Delta stakeholders in the process.

Senator Galgiani says why the Delta can’t be at the table is today there is only one option that is being discussed which isn’t acceptable to the Delta stakeholders and that is the Delta Tunnels. She would like to look at the tunnels plus some other projects side by side to evaluate what we should be doing.

Westlands talked about the human side of the problem but then stated: “We’ve given a lot of money and water to the environment over the past years. Are we ready to give more? No.”

Two recent news articles (both by Dan Batcher) illustrate the conflicts behind the Delta Issues. On the one hand are the water contractors who want more and more water for the Central Valley corporate agribusinesses that have been expanding, in particular, almond growing for Asian markets. On the other hand are the needs for the same water by Delta Farmers and Commercial Salmon Fisherman. Read on for an update on those two articles, why we care about salmon, and other recent events including Tuesday’s Senate Hearing on the Bay and Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).

We haven’t heard much about the plight of the Salmon Fishermen since the closure of Commercial Salmon Fishing off the coast of California and Oregon in 2008 and 2009, but Dan Batcher’s May 15th article gives us an update.

May 15th – How the Lack of Fresh Water Flows is Impacting Salmon and the Salmon Industry

May 15, 2013 – (From Dan Batcher’s article): “As Governor Jerry Brown continues to push for the construction of the peripheral tunnels under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) a new analysis released on May 13 by the Golden Gate Salmon Association (GGSA) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reveals that the salmon fishery is limping along at only 20 percent of the population goal required by state and federal law.”

“The landmark Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), passed by Congress in 1992 under political pressure from a big coalition of recreational anglers, commercial fishermen and environmentalists, set a goal of rebuilding salmon runs to almost a million adult fish by 2002.”

“‘More than a decade past the law’s deadline, the salmon fishery continues to struggle due, in large part, to excessive pumping of fresh water from the Bay-Delta that deprives salmon of the cold, flowing rivers and healthy habitat they need to thrive,’ according to a joint Press Release from GGSA and NRDC.”

“The groups say if current laws were enforced, a restored salmon fishery would ‘generate billions in new revenue and add thousands of jobs from Santa Barbara to northern Oregon. These jobs are tied to commercial fishing men and women, fresh and salt water recreational anglers, coastal communities, tribes, fish processors, equipment manufacturers, marinas, and food and hospitality services.'”

“Recommendations
State and federal agencies can step-up their efforts to restore salmon by acting on the following recommendations:

• The Department of the Interior should reform Central Valley Project water contracts and revamp its salmon rebuilding efforts in response to a scathing independent review. Specifically, Interior should better manage water and restoration funds dedicated to salmon recovery, incorporate the latest scientific information and appoint a manager to be accountable for the progress of the restoration program.
• The State Water Resources Control Board should set stronger standards to protect salmon in the San Joaquin River and the Bay-Delta ecosystem, in proceedings to revise these standards that are currently underway.
• The California Department of Water Resources should incorporate salmon doubling into the Bay Delta Conservation Plan process.
• The California Department of Fish and Wildlife should launch an ambitious state salmon restoration effort.
• The U.S. Department of the Interior should aggressively implement NRDC’s agreement to restore the salmon run on the San Joaquin River.”

“The construction of the 35 mile long twin tunnels under the Delta could hasten the extinction of Central Valley chinook salmon, Delta smelt and other fish species, according to state, federal and independent scientists.”

“Other threats to salmon recovery include Congressman Jim Costa’s legislation (see next report) to exempt the Central Valley and State Water projects from Delta pumping restrictions required under the Endangered Species Act to protect Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt” (see next section below).

Read the entire article Dan Batcher’s article “Bay-Delta salmon population just one fifth of mandated goal”.

May 12th – Desert Agribusinesses Attack the Salmon

Meanwhile, They’re at it again! On May 12, 2013, Congressman Jim Costa (D-CA) introduced legislation to exempt the Central Valley and State Water projects from Delta pumping restrictions required under the Endangered Species Act to protect Central Valley salmon and Delta smelt. See Dan Batcher’s article “Costa Introduces Legislation to Strip ESA Protections for Delta Fish” for more details.

This is reminiscent of the addition to the Senate Jobs Bill attempted by Sen. Feinstein in February 2011 to suspend the Environmental Species Act (ESA) protections for Chinook salmon and mandate certain pumping regimes from the Delta. That line item to the Jobs Bill was in response to a request from Feinstein’s friend and Paramount Farms’ owner, Stewart Resnick.

“The current Costa bill is supported by San Joaquin Valley water districts, including the Westlands Water District, Friant Water Authority, and the San Luis and Delta Mendota Water Authority. Other backers of the bill include the Latino Water Coalition, an agribusiness ‘Astroturf’ group, and [of course] Paramount Farms, owned by agribusiness tycoon Stewart Resnick, the largest orchard fruit grower in the world.” Many of these are the same agencies that we are supposed to entrust with protecting the Delta through adaptive management of the new pumps.

Meanwhile, Dick Haggerty, in the Modesto Bee on May 14th lamented that “It is so sad to drive down Interstate 5 in the southern portion of our valley and see miles of dead and dying orchards, all sacrificed to the migration of a few thousand silvery fish” and he goes on to describe the “beauty” of driving south where “it seems you never will leave the sight of almond orchards. They border our highways for hundreds of miles” and “the appearance of cotton fields somewhere south of Merced…those fluffy white fields.”

Hello – Mr. Haggerty may love to see almonds everywhere but the increase in almonds growing in the desert has been what has caused the increase in water exports from the Delta south so that today, the typical yearly exports are more than half of the river’s water versus the more reasonable level of less than 50% during the 80’s and 90’s. Growing water intensive crops like almonds and cotton in the desert is what is causing the water crisis.

And let’s go back to Mr. Haggerty’s prior statement “all sacrificed to the migration of a few thousand silvery fish.” Let’s talk about those fish.

Salmon – A Keystone Species

Salmon are a keystone species. Keystone species are those that are key to a multitude of other species. Without them the ecosystem would unravel. This is not an environmentalist’s exaggeration, but scientific fact.

Watch the video about the salmon crisis in British Columbia to learn how important salmon are. It’s over an hour long but if you even watch the first part, it identifies the key role salmon play in the ecosystem. http://player.vimeo.com/video/61301410?autoplay=1.

When you see the pictures of the dead salmon on the Frazier River you can understand the concern raised in the video. The salmon in B.C. are being killed in mass from diseases from the fish farms and what happens in Canada will effect Washington and drive hunting whales south. Likewise what happens to the Sacramento King Salmon run effects all of us from California to Southern Washington and continuing to export water at the current level is causing their demise.

Who needs salmon?

• Killer whales die without King Salmon.
  
  
• Poisened Killer Whales? Blame salmon.
  
  
• In 2007, 5 Dozen Killer Whales were seen off the San Francisco Coast hunting for salmon. They had traveled south because of the chinook salmon crisis in Oregon and Washington.
  
• Bears, Sea Lions and People also need salmon.

The Controvery is on-going

May 13th Kate Poole, NRDC, blogs “A Healthy Fishing Industry Is Just One of the Benefits of Strong Endangered Species Protections” echoing the recommendations made by the NRDC.

An interesting exchange is provided in the comments when a constant commenter, Mike Wade, from the California Farm Water Coalition, tries to dispute that improved delta fresh water flows would really help the fish but his remarks are easily refuted by both Kate and another reader.

Listening to the video tape of the March 20th BDCP Public meeting, I heard the comment from a farmer who had found out 4 days prior that the state planned to turn his farm into a “muck” farm. His comments followed a statement by Jerry Meral, Deputy Resources Secretary for the California Natural Resources Agency who chairs the BDCP public meetings, who claimed that they “really” weren’t taking that much farmland out of production for habitat restoration. That the main habitat restoration was north, much near the Yolo Bypass, and the impact was only about $1 million to ag.

But Delta Farmer Daniel Wilson on Andrus Island countered that claim. “I have two muck sites on my land probably destroying $6 million a year – my fruit packing facility, orchard, and home once occupied by a renowned artist.” (Their beautiful house is shown below.)

He also added, “Another point, you are probably going to distroy the town of Walnut Grove because you’re putting a 3.5 million yard leaching plant upwind of the town.” (A town that is listed in the Delta Plan as one of the Delta “Legacy” towns to be preserved and protected.)

Construction and “Muck”

This caused me to wonder what this “Muck” was all about (BDCP term, not ours). What I discovered was very distressing. The route of the Delta Tunnels is right through the heart of the Delta. During construction, they are building 50×300 foot docks – definitely impacting boat transit and any water skiing activity. The will be bringing in transmission lines and lights and pile drivers.

One construction site is on Bacon Island right next to the largest, most popular anchorage in the Delta – Mildred Island. Construction, night lights and pile driving all night all summer – from June 1 to October 31 for who knows how many years. The nighttime lights and pile driving is likely to be easily heard from the smaller but also popular Horseshoe anchorage on Connection Slough. I didn’t get an answer to the question if boating will be affected. But google earth shows prime farmland on Bacon Island. It sounds like in addition to flooding Islands for habitat restoration projects, farms will be disrupted for years during construction.

After construction, they are leaving piles of muck (dirt mixed with foaming agents, chemicals and polymers), hundreds of acres destroyed along this path. In total, approximately 1,600 acres will be covered by piles of smelly muck.

This muck is so bad they need to build a retaining dike around them to “ensure containment” and a complicated system to leach out the toxins. They store the muck in an impervious liner to be sure it doesn’t get into the ground water. I’ve been told that this type of removal and treatment normally requires removing the substance far away from cities and to be professional managed, not just left here and there throughout our Delta, on Delta farms, homes and operation facilities. Will farmers even be able to still farm those lands that remain with this big pile of mess in the middle, roads to it, 60 foot wide shafts down to the pipeline 100 feet below? The Bacon Island muck pile is just upwind of the Mildred Island Anchorage, near Horseshoe Anchorage and not far from Tinsley Island. These waterways are the primary sloughs for weekend boaters, fisherman and water skiiers. I’ve heard this kind of muck dump is like living next to sewage dump.

Smelly Muck next to Discovery Bay

In addition to the smelly site near Walnut Grove, one of the largest sites is about a mile east of Discovery Bay, on Victoria Island farmland, for the entire length of the city! Right in our own back yard. A smelly wastage dump right next to the most populated Delta boating community.

And what if the muck ponds leak? Will toxins get into the ground water or run off into the Delta? The leaching process is to dry it out. What is left afterwards? Dusty remnants blowing our way? Will it contaminate Discovery Bay’s drinking water?

These are some of the many questions that I wanted to go to the April BDCP meeting to ask.

The Plight of the Farmers

In the March 20 meeting, Delta Farmer Daniel Wilson had asked an obvious question: “Why is it going through Grand Island, Tyler Island when it could be Stone Lakes Refuge or Statton island where there are no capital improvements? Do it on public property, not private citizen’s property. I didn’t find out until 4-5 days ago when I saw it on a blurry map! Right now my house is under 20 feet of mud. Another point, you are probably going to distroy the town of Walnut Grove because you’re putting a 3.5 million yard leaching plant upwind of the town.” (A town that is listed in the Delta Plan as one of the heritage Delta towns to be preserved and protected.)

Jerry Meral gave a comment that is becoming similar to many of their responses: “Nothing is final. When people down near Courtland said the forebay is in a bad place, we took that pretty seriously and we ended up proposing to move the forebay to an area that may not welcome it but the impacts will be less. I would like to meet with you directly, go down and see the land.” In other words they are reasonable people, they are willing to be educated and flexible.

It didn’t sound that way when at the March 20 meeting a farmer specifically raised the question about what happens if the BDCP decides that a particular piece of property was needed for habitat restoration and the seller is unwilling to sell and was told that it was within the bounds of the project to use eminent domain to take the property. A farmer later questioned the entire premise of removing farmlands to save the fish. “But farming coexisted with the salmon for years, they flourished with the farming until the 60s and the State Water Project. It is not the farming, it is not the levees, it is the pumping.”

At the April 4th meeting another farmer asked when they would know for sure what lands were at risk. He was told plans could still be changing for a couple of years. He needs to plant vineyards this year – what is the risk? No answer. He asked what if the farmer was unwilling to sell. This time Jerry Meral avoided saying anything about eminant domain. The farmer left the podium with his head down, almost grieving.

A Clifton Court Forebay farmer who is also a school teacher complained that Clifton Court Forebay already put their farms underwater and more is at risk from this new project. Her story of being ignored by the state when their pumping facility caused damage and issues for their current farmlands was heartbreaking. She complained that her classroom is underfunded, it’s a struggle to teach and asked where is the money coming from? We need it in the schools.

Jerry Meral gave one of the standard answers including an air of being totally reasonable, surprise that there could be issues affecting people from their current plans and the offer to come meet with him and he’s sure something can be done to help her current problems with the pumps. As far as the schools, Jerry responded saying well, he couldn’t take money from the BDCP and support the schools. However, that wasn’t actually a truthful question, at least from what we know so far (the later chapters will spell out the funding plan). But to-date the plan has been for the water rate payers to ultimately pay for the tunnel pumping/operations. But the habitat restoration and mitigation would be from a new state water bond. Remember the water bill that Governor Schwarzenegger took off the ballot in 2008 because it would have been voted down and again it was removed from the 2010 ballot? Currently it is misleadingly titled “Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act” planned for the 2014 ballot. That bond is what they plan to have voters vote for to do the actual beneficial side of the BDCP plan. Bond funds that would come out of the General Fund, and yes, take away from the schools. So the farmer was exactly right – it will come down to saving the Delta from the continual and expanded destruction of pumping versus schools.

Plus why after spending hundreds of millions of dollars creating this BDCP plan is it the case that they have no clue about what exists in the Delta: where the farms and homes are, where the cities are, where the scenic waterways are. Why are they waiting for farmers and citizens to read through their thousands and thousands of pages of plan to alert them to the issues?

The plight of the farmers and more pictures is in the Sacramento Bee:
Article: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/07/5322193/state-water-tunnel-plans-call.html
Photos: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/06/5321873/delta-farmers-concerned-about.html

Impacts including the Boating Community:

At last Thursday’s BDCP (April 4), Chapter 4 describing the construction and muck was to be one of the chapters reviewed at the April 4th meeting. Save the California Delta Alliance met before the meeting and car pooled there. The BDCP reviewed Chapter 4 and called for questions. I was confused because they had not mentioned the words “Construction” or “Muck” in their overview about what Chapter 4 contained. So I raised my questions anyway. Why does the tunnel go through the heart of the Delta? Didn’t they know they are putting a major construction site right next to the most popular anchorage in the South Delta? And leaving a smell muck pile afterwards? And a bigger muck pile next to Discovery Bay! Is it toxic? What if it leaks? What is the risk to our drinking water? etc., etc.

Jerry Meral gave a variation of his standard answer/non-answers – that the exact location of the tunnel and construction is not set in concrete. All will be well.

South Delta impacts from the Construction: Bacon Island/Mildred Anchorage site

South Delta Muck Dump Sites: Upwind from Mildred and one just East of Discovery Bay

”
And how close will it be? Less than 2 miles from the DB Yacht Club

What good is the “Delta Plan”?

The Delta Plan is supposed to protect the Delta. It is supposed to protect the “Delta as a Place” including communities and farmlands. It has wonderful sections describing the beauty of the waterways best enjoyed by boat, the tranquil anchorages. The sloughs around Mildred and Connection slough are favorite ski runs. Yet they have decided construction should go down the middle. For those of us in the South, they really picked the our favorite waterways for their tunnel building disruption which could go on for years.

The Delta Plan says it recognizes the “Delta as a Place” and boating as an important aspect of the Delta. They talk about the cost benefits of additional recreation in the Delta. Yet this could very well remove our largest, most popular anchorage in the south Delta. Incredible!

Save the California Delta Alliance (www.NoDeltaGates.com) is based in Discovery Bay and working to protect boating, Delta farming, and local community interests for the entire Delta. We would love to have more boating and farming groups contact us to join forces against the Delta Tunnels and all related impacts harmful to our area.

Email Jan McCleery at stcda@nodeltagates.com to get on our mailing list. Let us know if you want to volunteer to do more. Together we can make a difference!

We don’t have enough sign-ups to order the buses, but we will have a good showing to attend the meeting and show our concern.

Because there’s only 12-15 of us, we’re changing our game plan and won’t be bringing the signs to this meeting or have a noisy group outside with photos and news reporters. We’d need one or two buses to make a noisy showing. We know a large number of our community want to go – we think we aren’t giving people enough notice and need the buses. So we are going to start taking sign-ups now to do the buses for the next meeting – date not firm but listed as the week of May 6th.

But first, this Thursday, April 4th: We will be there.

Everyone who can should still attend the meeting. At the last meeting, the BDCP asked everyone attending to state their name and affiliation (i.e., Discovery Bay resident or member of Save the California Delta Alliance) so having a group in the audience is still great and shows our interest and concerns and we can cheer/applaud for comments we agree with. The meeting time is now from 1-5 PM (previously was 1:30 – 4:30).

1:00 PM Red Lion Hotel Woodlake Conference Center, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento, CA 95815

Pre-meeting and Carpooling from the Boardwalk Grill at the Discovery Bay Marina: Michael Brodsky (our legal council) and I will be at the Boardwalk Grill an hour early (10 AM) to brief anyone interested on talking points. We will leave in car pools at 11:00 AM to give us time to get there on time and get seats (the last meeting was crowded). If you plan to meet us and haven’t emailed me, please let me know.

10:00 AM to meet ahead and discuss talking points
10:50 AM to form car pools and leave at 11 AM.
Boardwalk Grill: 5879 Marina Road, Discovery Bay, CA 94505.

As far as getting on the buses …

We think that part of why we aren’t getting the sign-ups is the short notice (or maybe it is because it is during the working day?)

Email me if you would have gotten on the buses this week but couldn’t and why (work, too far, already had other plans/too short a notice, etc.) If it was because the meeting was during the day, what would be better (6:30 some evening or on a Saturday morning). We want to get you all to a meeting or get a meeting to come here to us!

The next meeting will be the week of May 6th and will likely be mid-week during the day in Sacramento. Email me if you want to be counted to “GET ON THE BUS”. We need 40 to hire one bus and it would be great to have at least two buses headed up!

Email Me:

1. Let me know if you want to meet in Discovery Bay to carpool April 4th and haven’t already responded. Right after this email I’ll mail the current list of attendees to form car pools and see if people want to meet an hour early for talking points.
2. Let me know if you wanted to go April 4 but couldn’t and why (time, distance, no bus, etc.)
3. Let me know if you are going to “get on the bus” the first week of May (time/place to be announced but likely during the work week

Jan McCleery, President
Save the California Delta Alliance

The public meeting of the BDCP is Thursday April 4 in Sacramento.

Car pools are being organized in Discovery Bay – 11 to 11:30 at the Boardwalk Grill to meet and drive up. The meeting is from 1:30-4:30 pm at the Red Lion Woodlake Conference Center, 500 Leisure Lane, Sacramento. We need to show we are against the entire tunnel idea!

The 2nd set of BDCP chapters were released yesterday. Just more of the same. Everyone knows that over exports is what is causing the demise of the salmon. It’s the amount of water being removed. That is what the State Water Board’s Delta Flow report stated in August 2010. But it was the wrong answer for the Delta Stewardship Council and the BDCP. Charlton Bonham, director of the state Department of Fish and Wildlife claimed “An immense amount of science has gone into the (plan).” That may be – but it’s bad science if it ignores the key parameter: “How much water does the Delta need?” And the answer is “More than it’s getting today.”

On Capital Public Radio, Amy Quinton reported that

The new chapters of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan look at the effects of the project on endangered species like Delta Smelt and Chinook salmon.

They are progressing with their same, unscientific proposal to continue to take too much water out of the Delta, flood some islands, and want us to believe there is scientific evidence that then the fish will be happy.

Habitat restoration alone can’t save the Delta

I agree with Bill Jennings:

Bill Jennings with the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance is highly critical of the project.

“You can’t deprive an estuary of half its flow and expect it to survive. And frankly, BDCP is essentially a death sentence for one of the great estuaries in the world.”

Jennings says the proposed tunnels to pump water south would have disastrous effects on fish populations.

Who will pay for habitat restoration and for damages?

In a Mercury News article Paul Burgarino’s report identifies the “catch”:

Plans call for creation of more than 140,000 acres of new habitat — floodplains, tidal marshes and grasslands — from existing Delta islands at a cost of about $4 billion to be footed by taxpayers.

1. First, new habitat will not help fish if the water is salty and polluted.
2. Second, new habitat will not ever be created if the “bill” is from bonds in place of schools or higher taxes. That’s right. The BDCP funds only cover the construction of the new tunnels. The rate payers will have to pay for the higher operational costs of the tunnels. And there’s no money identified for habitat or environment restoration. That will need to be voted on as new bonds or higher taxes!
3. Third, other estimates claim the amount for just purchasing proposed habitat restoration acreage will be $9 billion, not $4.

And who’s land will they be flooding, anyway?

Jerry Meral at the last BDCP Public Meeting said that if the farmers are unwilling to sell their lands, the state would use eminent domain to take them.

And why?

The BDCP plans to force farmers to sell and then flood their fertile delta farmlands, farmlands that take half the water as desert farms down south, so that mega-corporation farmers living in Beverly Hills and Pacific Heights can get subsidized water and continue to increase the acerage of water-intensive crops like almonds and re-sell their subsidized $20/acre foot water to Mojave Desert developers at $5,000/acre foot. When these huge corporations are making so much profit from Delta water, what will stop them from wanting more and more?

The state can’t afford more almonds and other water-intensive crop expansion!
STOP TAKING OUT TOO MUCH WATER!

The big agri-business corporations have been expanding their water-intensive almond acreage for years (the past 10-15) which is directly responsible for the last 10-15 years’ increase in exports. That has also been compounded by the loss of the Colorado River water for LA but the most significant driver behind the increase is the big corporation almond farms. The increase moved the pumping from “excess” to “too much”, the river reversed flows, and the salmon and other fish populations collapsed.

Isn’t it intuitive?

The amount of acerage of water-intensive almonds goes up:

The amount of water exported goes up:

The salmon decline:

What about our water fowl?

Here’s what really gripes me. I love sitting on my back deck and watching the waterfowl. In last week’s chapters, Appendix 1-A specifically does NOT protect the magnificent blue heron, white egrets, or most other birds in the area, even ones on the “CDFW Watch List”. Part of living in and loving the Delta is our rich and varied, wonderful birdlife. If salt water intrudes and our water becomes polluted, these birds will die or leave. Specifics from Appendix 1-A:

• Snowy egret and Great egret, GREAT BLUE HERON – even though the report states that their “rookeries are considered sensitive colonial breeding sites for this species and are thus included on the CDFW Special Animals list.” But no reason is provided why they would not be “Yes” on the list.



• Cackling Goose, Tule white-fronted Goose – “Winters in the Yolo Basin and various locations in the Delta and could be affected by restoration activities” but not “Yes” on the BDCP list.
• Peregrine Falcon, Prairie Falcon, Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Osprey, various hawks. These are not included even though they are on the CDFW Watch List and the plan says they are occasionally observed foraging in the Plan Area, mostly during the winter.
• “Comorants, Western grebes (small duck)” because they have “no special conservation status”. And not listed at all in the Appendix are our common Mallard ducks or Canadian geese. These aren’t endangered species and many of us don’t like the geese poop on our golf course, but we certainly don’t want to lose sight of them flying in our skies, honking in their V-formations in the evenings, and paddling in our bays. We do have a lot of them now (and I’m sure the duck hunters appreciate that) but I doubt any of us want them to move elsewhere as another impact from the decay of the Delta.

In researching, it’s interesting to me that birds like the herons, egrets, and sandhill cranes need BOTH wetlands to nest in and agricultural lands to forage in. The BDCP puts great stock in converting Delta islands to wetlands for environmental reasons. Yet that causes worries that species like the cranes will be negatively impacted by removing their foraging areas.

It all shows me how delicate the environmental balance is and why humans should stop doing experiments to “correct” the damage that was done by their last experiment. And why the BDCP reliance on “wetlands restoration” as the “fix” for the environmental damage they know the tunnels will cause is more than just risky and naive.

The public meeting of the BDCP is Thursday April 4 in Sacramento.

Car pools are being organized in Discovery Bay – 11 to 11:30 at the Boardwalk Grill to meet and drive up. We need to show we are against the entire tunnel idea!

“Ho ho, the tunnels must go!”