An article about Save the California Delta Alliance and how it got started in May 110 Magazine: The Battle for the Delta.
Archive for the 'STCDA News' Category
“How Wet Weather Impacted California’s Groundwater Deficit” is a good article about California’s groundwater supply and, I add, the State’s mismanagement of it.
“Even after this year’s heavy rains, California’s groundwater supply remains slowly but steadily shrinking. Our wet year was a missed opportunity by the state to have a plan in place to capture additional rainwater in wet years. I don’t mean more reservoirs. While the snow pack can hold 15 million acre-feet (MAF) and the state’s reservoirs 40 MAF, California’s groundwater reserves, by contrast, are vast. In the porous soils below the ground there may be a billion acre-feet of water storage.
A billion acre feet would fill a skyscraper 60,000 miles high.
“The best way to do this [replenish the ground water], Harter says, would be to divert surplus flows in wet years onto undeveloped land and allow it to sink. Agricultural land is the most porous.”
But then the article falls short. Stops. To me then, the obvious approach is to restore the Tulare Lake basin. That would flood existing farmland for a year or two but the result would be restored Central Valley groundwater.
Unfortunately the article echoes the answer we keep hearing from the state.
“… we could turn around California’s growing groundwater deficit. But we probably won’t,” he says.
Why not? I ask. Is it easier to destroy the entire Delta than ask the farmers to take subsidies every 5-10 years while the Tulare Lake does it’s historical job and restores the groundwater table?
Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) members got on the bus Friday April 28 to travel to Sacramento and attend the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) meeting. This was the monthly meeting after the March meeting in Brentwood where 400 people showed up to let the Council know, in no uncertain terms, that they opposed adding an Amendment to the Delta Plan supporting “conveyance” (i.e., tunnels) as a “fix” for the Delta.
Arriving at the bus pickup location at 6:30 a.m. (yawn), Mike passed out tee shirts “Save the Delta / No Tunnels / No Gates”
while Jan managed the bus boarding.
Once loaded and ready to travel, a “healthy” breakfast was served.
The bus arrived in Sacramento.
We headed to the conference room and quickly that room was full. We had been joined by an additional thirty or more STCDA members who drove up separately plus members from North Delta C.A.R.E.S., RTD, and others. There was a strict limit on the number of people in each room, so a separate conference room was opened upstairs for the overflow. I asked the representative if the Council would have audio/video to be able to see the people in the overflow room. She told me that people in that room would have audio and video to follow the proceedings.
“No,” I countered, “the other way around. So the Council can see the reaction of the people in the conference room.”
A shocked look. That was a no.
RTD passed out signs where one side said “Agree” and the other “Disagree” so we could silently and respectfully rabble-rouse and let our feedback be known. During the two-plus hour presentation by the Council Staff to the Council about this new Amendment, the “Disagree” signs were seen repeatedly.
There were some very good change in the Amendment; statements that made it sound like the Delta Plan would actually do something to Protect the Delta. I was almost feeling like the 400 in attendance in March were being heard and wondered if my planned comments were outdated, that the Council was going to become “Stewards of the Delta” as their name implied. But then they went right back to tunnel-talk.
The “Disagree” signs quickly appeared when the Council quoted as fact a statement by Lund saying the main issue in the Delta is “conveyance limitations” and “improvements to through-Delta conveyance are needed, but not enough.”
Boo hiss!
Slide 23 had another list of reasons why the tunnels are needed. Next to the list of reasons why the tunnels will “fix” things I wrote “FALSE”, “FALSE”, “FALSE.” That slide also again raised the “earthquake bogey,” as Dr. Pyke has termed it. The false scare-tactic thought up right after Katrina that says all the levees will fall down when there comes a major earthquake in the Delta and then L.A will lose it’s water supply. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I then wrote down a sentence for my planned comments that after commending the Council on some of the pro-Delta changes made to the Amendment, I added: “If you truly are still protecting the Delta, the WaterFix project needs to be abandoned.”
The only time I remember all signs saying “Agree” during that part of the meeting was when one of the Council members who was paying attention to the attendees’ feedback asked if we thought there is valid science out there that is not being considered in the WaterFix plan. Well, yeh – of course, everyone agreed.
The Council had made many changes/redlines to the Amendment that were presented. Many of the changes sounded very good for the Delta.
After the amendment presentation, the Council opened the meeting up for comments. There were more than thirty people that made comments from the main room. There were another thirty waiting to come downstairs to make their comments.
Comments being made to the Council:
The line-up to make comments:
Captain Frank Morgan letting the Council know what he thinks of the tunnel plan.
Chairperson Randy Fiori (right) looking unswayed by all of the arguments against the Tunnels.
Out of all those commenters, only one was “for” the tunnels and she was from the Department of Water Resources (DWR), the State agency pushing the tunnels. She received “boos.”
If you remember, the Delta Plan is a plan with two co-equal goals: “Reliable exports” to the South (for the Central Valley farmers and urban users like L.A.) and “Protect the Delta.” Our point is that huge tunnels requiring a massive eleven year construction project through the middle of the Delta would cause havoc and economic ruin for all of the communities affected by the construction. Plus, the result of diverting fresh water directly from the Sacramento River and around (under) the Delta instead of allowing it to flow through would impact Delta farmers, waterways, fish, and communities. That is not the way to protect the Delta!
Also remember that last year STCDA and other organizations won a lawsuit against the DSC because the Delta Plan did not, as directed by the legislature, include measurable targets for reducing exports, reducing reliance on the Delta, and ensuring sufficient flow through the Delta. The result of that lawsuit win is that the judge invalidated the Delta Plan until proper revisions could be made. If course, the DSC is appealing that judgement but still, they should not be moving ahead with new amendments until they correct the existing Plan.
Both legal councilors Bob Wright (Friends of the River) and Michael Brodsky (STCDA) were strong critics of the Council for moving ahead with this amendment, ignoring the judge’s ruling and, as Bob Wright said, ignoring the direction they were given by the Legislature when the Council was formed, to start with the Delta Flow Requirements to protect the Delta.
Citizens argued for their communities and farmers for their farms. People gave personal testimony about the harm that would come from this project. Michael Brodsky’s summed up the message everyone was telling them: “Since 2010, the Delta Stewardship Council has refused to do their job. Their job is to find solutions to the problem that the way we now export water from the Delta to supply California cities and farms harms the Delta and makes our state’s water supply unreliable.
From 2010 to 2013, the Council spent thousands of hours developing a useless Delta Plan because they refused to address harmful exports. For three years, they said “the BDCP will do it for us; the BDCP will fix everything” We sued them and asked the Court to order them to do their job—which is to address harmful exports, not bow down to the BDCP. The judge agreed with us. The judge struck down the Delta Plan and ordered the Council to try again.
Now the Council says, well, the BDCP has looked at all of this for years and years now and what they want–the twin tunnels—is good enough for us. No need for us to look at this, it has all been done for us.
They just don’t get it. The status quo, a failed tunnel project, doesn’t cut it. Delta Council, please do your job and find solutions to save our Delta. That is our message.”
It was now 2:00 p.m. and the meeting hadn’t had even one stand-up break. The bus riders had to leave but many others remained. The assumption had been that the Council would then vote to add the Amendment into the Plan, since they have marching orders from the Governor to move his tunnel project ahead. But instead, the chose to not vote, to go back and review the process.
Maybe the lawyers calling them on the Council to obey the law and do their job had an impact. Maybe the huge turnout at the last two meetings has made them take pause. Maybe some of them are actually listening to the facts, that the WaterFix is not based on valid science and is not what is needed.
Building tunnels does not reduce reliance on the Delta. They would increase reliance on the Delta. The tunnels would not reduce exports from the Delta. Instead, they are planned to maintain the currently excessively high level of exports and have the capability to export much more, to export the entire volume of the Sacramento River. The Delta Plan does not even discuss the Delta Flow Requirements because those requirements written in 2010 said that the exporters were already taking too much money. Updated requirements released recently say that even more flow is needed than analyzed in 2010.
That is the true science. Fish need water. The Delta needs fresh water flowing through it to remain a healthy environment for fish and humans to live, farm, and boat in its waterways. The goal of the 90,000 pages written for the California WaterFix is to obfuscate the true science.
Their current thesis compares building the tunnels versus “status quo.” Much mention was made that “the status quo cannot continue.” One quote was that “Continuing the present through-Delta pumping strategy implies maintaining the ecosystem in its current state, which is detrimental to desirable species.”
To that statement, I say “wrong.” The error in the above logic is that it ignores the real solution: Cutting back on exports. Oh horrors, say the farmers. Less almonds? Less profit?
Yes! Even cutting back, there is still plenty of water for urban use and in most years enough for growing all the produce California and most of America needs for their table, plus excess. But there is not enough water to expand almond orchards for Asia without end. The export limit was met and exceeded in the late 1990’s.
Is the Council listening? Time will tell. The May meeting is being re-planned. Originally scheduled to meet in Suisun City, it is now moved back to Sacramento and date changed to Thursday/Friday May 25/26. The tentative schedule is that they will discuss conveyance (i.e., the Delta Tunnels/WaterFix) Thursday afternoon. At this point we are hearing that they won’t vote on the Amendment at this meeting. Instead it will be a working meeting discussing their process. That is what the lawyers told them they needed to do.
So right now, I’m calling the bus trip a “win.”
Thank you to Richard Wisdom, DB Press, who provided most of the pictures above.
NOTE: DAY AND TIME CHANGE – NOW FRIDAY APRIL 28 AT 9 A.M.
We showed the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) that the communities in the South Delta were not going to sit still for their pushing the Delta Tunnels as a necessary solution to save the Delta. We showed up at the DSC meeting in Brentwood in March!
We can make a HUGE impression if we all show up one more time, this time at their doorstep in Sacramento. This is an important meeting where they will decide whether to move ahead to incorporate the tunnels into the Delta Plan.
Friday, April 28th at 9 A.M.
The tunnel (conveyance) agenda item is first item on Friday
Right now the meeting is scheduled for:
Park Tower Plaza, 980 Ninth Street, 2nd Floor Conference Center
Sacramento, CA 95814
But to be safe, check their agenda page here prior to heading up. They are trying to set up a larger conference room.
To make it easier to go, we plan to provide buses from Discovery Bay to the meeting. The cost would be $25/person. We would meet at 6:30 am in the Marina/Boardwalk Grill parking lot and return in the afternoon.
I would appreciate knowing if:
- YES – You can count on me! I will get on the bus!
- MAYBE – Not sure yet. But if I go I’ll ride the bus.
- MAYBE – Not sure yet. But if I go I’ll drive myself.
- I will go, but I will drive myself
Show up in your tee shirts if you bought one for the Brentwood event.
Pictures from the Brentwood Meeting, courtesy of Richard Wisdom, The Press
We have a few tee shirts left (8 women’s Med; 6 men’s Large – men’s run large) if you want to purchase on for $10. (If we get a lot of requests, we will look into ordering more). Click the link below to email your Tee Shirt Request
IMPORTANT: April 17 DEADLINE TO SUBMIT COMMENTS
The Delta Stewardship Council is working to add an amendment to include the Delta Tunnels in the Delta Plan. That is not right!
Suggested comment ideas from our Legal Council – items that are most impactful, (please rewrite in your own words) are here:
Comments Ideas/Suggestions.
EMAIL ADDRESS: Click here to send your email to deltaplanNOP@deltacouncil.ca.gov with a BCC to bdcp.commments.copy@nodeltagates.com.
Amending the Delta Plan to rubber-stamp the Twin Tunnels is just wrong, which is what we all went to Brentwood to tell them and now need to follow up with formal comments.
We also need to let them know that their process isn’t working. They could see how many people were concerned from the Brentwood meeting. But that format isn’t one where all concerns can be communicated and absorbed by the Council. We need working group sessions, and need them locally and in the evenings as well.
Most importantly, there is no valid reason for the Council to be amending the Delta Plan to accept the one alternative of the Twin Tunnels as the ONLY action. See the attachment for reasons and issues with the way the Council is moving ahead.
Please submit comments now. Thank you!
Mike McCleery giving feedback to the Delta Stewardship Council
South Delta locals poured into the Delta Stewardship Council meeting on Thursday, March 23 in Brentwood. There was an amazing turnout! Particularly considering that this was the third of the DSC’s “throughout California” distributed meetings. The Tracy DSC Meeting had only 3 people in attendance; the Southern California DSC Meeting was only attended by water agency personnel.
But when the DSC dared venture into the South Delta, we showed them that the people here are 100 percent opposed to the Delta Tunnel boondoggle. There were several hundred people in attendance, many were from the Save the California Delta Alliance group and at least 70 were wearing STCDA’s new “Save the Delta / No Tunnels / No Gates” tee shirts. The DSC recognized that the crowd was there for Agenda Item 11 (obviously) and the Council moved that to be the first topic discussed.
Many people got up and made comments against the tunnels. Barbara from Restore the Delta noted problems with how the council has been holding its meetings and that the DSC meetings need better communication and format. People asked for evening meetings, when more people could be involved, and asked for more involvement in the process where their input would be considered.
Many who commented brought up boating & recreation, impacts to the water quality, the need to protect the people who live in the Delta, local farming, fish, etc. Many talked the need to improve delta flows, reduce reliance on the Delta, and reduce exports. The recent National Marine Fisheries Service report that the Delta Tunnels will destroy the fish in the Delta was brought up and quoted from. People asked why the DSC couldn’t weigh the value of almonds over the value of the Delta. Several people, questioned that the DSC is a real “Stewardship” Council and reprimanded them on the need to take their role seriously, be stewards, and protect the Delta. Bob Wright, Friends of the River legal council, made good points questioning why this amendment was being proposed at all, and stated that the tunnels should not be in the Delta Plan nor the NOP. A representative from the Sierra Club spoke and stated that the Sierra Club are with us in opposition to the tunnels. Lauren Korth, Delta Field Representative from Jim Frazier’s office read Jim’s comments which were very strong and on-target.
The DSC’s opening statement was that it is obvious the current method of exporting water is “broken,” hence a conveyance system is needed to “fix” it. Therein lies the biggest issue. If they started with the Delta Flow requirements like the legislature had directed them to do, and therefore reduced exports, then a conveyance project may not even be needed.
A few of the DSC members seemed to be swayed or impressed by what they heard. However, Randi Fiorini, the chairman, seemed to not be really listening to comments, not interested, and seemed ready to adopt the amendment and move it along. (He does come from the CV farmer side.) Although not everyone was paying attention, a couple of the council did seem to be hearing what we said. Patrick Johnston wanted to address the issue with meetings not being as effective in getting input plus the need to hold some meetings in the evening. Ken Weinberg with experience putting the Carlsbad Desalination Plant on-line appreciated the push for new desalination plants as a way to actually add water to the system. And Skip Thompson, Solano County Supervisor and representative on the Council from the Delta Protection Commission, questioned the process for amending the plan at this time and felt that the DSC seems to be trying to get around the rules. He also brought up Jeffery Michael’s Tunnel Plan Cost/Benefit analysis that showed that for every 29 cents of benefit, the cost was $1.00. Definitely not reasonable. He pushed back on the council and got a standing ovation.
Standing Ovation for Skip Thompson’s supportive remark
But then Supervisor Thompson said the DSC in their role has to make the “Grand Compromise.” I found that to be an interesting term when fish can’t really “compromise.”
Other members of the DSC weren’t as supportive of our concerns and appeared to want to just move ahead and add the tunnels to the Delta Plan.
Thanks to everyone who attended. We think some of the council members may be hearing us.
Please send any additional comments that may have come to mind by April 17th. See our Event Tracker page about the April 17th deadline to know the email address where to send your comments and see suggested comments.
ALSO – the next event is when the DSC decides whether or not to move ahead with the amendment to add the Delta Tunnels to the Delta Plan. A few council members are swaying. Help us push them over to our side by getting on the bus to Sacramento.
THANK YOU to the 450-500 people who flooded the DB Elementary Gym to attend the STCDA Town Hall Monday night!
If you weren’t able to attend, Gene Beley is posting videos of the event. Here is Michael Brodsky’s presentation.
Gene will be posting others as he gets them edited.
And a nice write-up by Galen Kusic covering the event
We’re asking everyone to go to the upcoming Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) meeting in Brentwood. The DSC is pushing the tunnels. Show up to let them know how many of us in the South Delta oppose their tunnel plan and their threat to install salinity gates throughout the Delta.
Thursday March 23 at the Brentwood Community Center, 708 3rd Street, Brentwood, CA at 9:30 AM or meet at 9 AM in the Marina parking lot (the Boardwalk Grill parking) to carpool. The meeting starts at 9 AM but won’t get going until about 9:30 AM. We’ll be passing out talking points in a few days for those willing to stand up and make their voices heard.
Thanks to all of you who turned out to our STCDA Town Hall Meeting on the Delta Tunnels last night. About 500 people came out – how amazing. When Town Halls are usually held, it’s considered “big” to have 100 or more, yet Discovery Bay continues to display the passion that exists in this region against the Delta Tunnels.
Here are the presentations from last night. Let me know if you want them in the original formats instead of PDF.
Jan’s overview/introduction Presentation
Michael Brodsky’s Presentation
Diane Burgis’ Presentation
Town Hall Meeting on the Delta Tunnels Monday, March 13, 6:30 PM
Published March 7, 2017 STCDA News Leave a CommentSave the California Delta Alliance needs your help! Come to our Town Hall Meeting on the Delta Tunnels Monday, March 13, 6:30 PM in the Discovery Bay Elementary School Gymnasium. Hear about the progress STCDA made last year fighting the tunnels, and what’s left to do this year as the State tries to make it’s big push to get the tunnels started in 2018.
Help us stop Gov. Brown from starting his tunnel project! The eleven year construction project will wreck boating and recreation in the South Delta, removing favorite ski sloughs, blocking major boating waterways, filling our waterways with barges, docks, 5 mph zones, truck traffic on Highway 4 and the levees, 24×7 noise and lights. When done, our bays and the South Delta will become stagnant, salty, and polluted. We need your help to continue our battle. Please come to the meeting to find out how you can help stop the tunnels.
You’ll also have the opportunity to hear from your elected officials about what they are doing to try to stop the tunnels. Meet Diane Burgis, our new Contra Costa County Supervisor and hear from Jim Frazier, Assemblyman, and Senator Steve Glazer. This is the first time Sen. Glazer has come to one of our Town Hall Meetings. We’ve told him that our community is very actively opposed to the tunnels and we always have a big crowd show up. Please, let’s fill the gymnasium like we have for prior Town Hall Meetings and show them we are not giving up the fight.
Monday, March 13, 6:30 PM in the Discovery Bay Elementary School Gymnasium.
The California WaterFix (Delta Tunnel) EIR/EIS review period ends soon. If you haven’t sent in comments please do. And if you have sent in comments, but think of more to say, you can send them in multiple times. The more they hear from us the better off we will be.
Send in comments to CalWaterFix@water.ca.gov by Monday, January 30th.
And help us continue to support you! Help Us Save the Delta – Please Donate!
If you live in Discovery Bay, which will be significantly impacted through closure of our nearby waterski/wakeboard sloughs and ruining our nearby Mildred Island Anchorage, and if you are worried that the state keeps publishing atrocious plans that would block our waterways and potentially isolate us from the rest of the Delta, describe what the Delta means to you. Give your personal insight.
The tunnels are supposed to “protect and enhance unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricultural values of the Delta as an evolving place.” That’s in the Delta Plan. The EIR claims that they are doing that. If you can send in comments with your own judgment that they don’t, they are violating Water Code § 85045.
If you sent in prior comments and their response to you was like many of mine it said, “Please see Master Response 24 for more information regarding the Delta as a Place.” If you, like me, couldn’t figure out what Master Response 24 was or where it was, I emailed the DWR and they sent the link:
But I read “Master Response 24” and it is wrong. They are saying they don’t need to protect recreation that exists for our community because they are enhancing recreation up at Brannon State Park on the Sacramento River. They are wrong. They are also saying that the Delta will evolve and they don’t need to preserve it like a Mausoleum. We are not asking them to preserve it, we know over time it evolves. Levee walls around Mildred Island get smaller, the river changes. But that doesn’t mean the State has the right to destroy our community, our economy, our culture, and our way of life!
If you live in the Delta and know what will and will not destroy our way of life, then DWR’s response, “Master Response 24” to comments that they are complying with the Delta Reform Act requirements to protect Delta as Place is flat wrong.
The more comment letters that we can get that list specifics from the EIR or at least makes the above argument, the better off we will be.
And help us continue to support you! Help Us Save the Delta – Please Donate!
Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) 