Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

In 2008, Wealthy Stockton-area farmer and food processor Dean Cortopassi came out against proposals then to move water around the Delta. “I will fight to the death to protect the Delta, because I love it,” he said then.

He and his wife, Joan, have now bankrolled the “No Blank Checks Initiative” ballot effort, which will be on the November 2016 ballot. The Sacramento Bee article calls passing the measure a “New hurdle for Delta tunnels,” because it could erect a significant political hurdle for Brown’s plans to build the Delta tunnels.

A Pro-Tunnels group admits, “It would be very problematic for ‘creating a secure water supply in California,’ ” where ‘creating a secure water supply in California,’ is pro-tunnel-speak meaning problematic for building the Tunnels. That’s good news!

However, Brown and his Delta Tunnel advocates are already out marketing against the proposal, saying it is too broad and could slow down even road and other projects. They’ve already got the Building and Trades Council (a group that stands to make a lot of money from projects like the High Speed Rail and the Delta Tunnels) to “mount an aggressive campaign to defeat this misleading initiative.” and others calling the measure “called the measure “both deceptive and dangerous.”

Since these are the people that have been deceptive and dishonest about the real purpose of the Tunnels (making money), I hope the measure will pass. Anything that puts hurdles in the way of the Delta Tunnels and other overgrown projects like the High Speed Rail is a good thing, to me.

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.”

As reported today in the L.A. Times, an agreement was reached yesterday with the U.S. Government and Westlands. (The agreement must still be approved by Congress.)

For years Westlands has refused to pay it’s portion of the Central Valley Project (Delta water shipped to them) because the U.S. Gov’t was suppose to build a drain for their land. When it was discovered that their land was selenium-tainted (remember the Kesterson Bird Deformities?) it would have cost $3 billion to drain properly. That stalemate has been going on for years.

With the new settlement, reclamation bureau would be relieved of the court-ordered requirement to provide drainage to Westlands cropland. The district would permanently retire 100,000 acres of ill-drained fields and agree to a cap on water deliveries that amounts to 75% of its current contract amount. HOWEVER, the government will lift limits on the size of Westlands farms eligible for subsidized water deliveries. And it would give the district an open-ended water contract that wouldn’t be subject to periodic renewal or negotiation.

Westlands will, however, still be subject to shortage with junior water rights as they are now.

A solution to the water shortage is to close down the damaged Westlands Water District lands from farming. This agreement is going the wrong way.

Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Stockton) called it “an outrageous windfall for Westlands.”

Read the entire story here.

One of the steps necessary in approval of the tunnels is a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps has opened a comment period but it is only for 30 days and with no public hearings. Michael Brodsky, our STCDA Legal Council, wrote them an email this morning, which is below.

We’re asking people to send in a comment to the Corps requesting
(1) an extension of the comment period and
(2) that they hold public hearings.

Mr. Brodsky requested an extension to January 10, 2016 and that they hold 3 public hearings, 2 of them to be in Delta communities.

Emails to the Corps should have the subject as:
Request to extend comment period SPK-2008-00861 and hold public hearings

And should be emailed to:
Zachary.M.Simmons@usace.army.mil

His email sent this morning below can serve as talking points as well as anything else anyone wants to add.
—————————————————————————————–

Dear Mr. Simmons,

This office represents Save the California Delta Alliance. We are writing to request an extension of the comment period on this project until January 10, 2016. We also request that the Corps hold three public hearings, with two of them located within Delta communities.

The Water Fix project is the most significant permitting undertaking that the Corps will experience in California in the twenty-first century. The project is highly controversial and portends the environmental fate of the largest estuary on the west coast of the Americas.

Water Fix also represents a sudden change in direction for federal and state agencies with regard to water supply infrastructure and environmental commitments. For the last seven years, state and federal agencies have promised repeatedly that any new point of diversion and new conveyance facilities would be part of a federally approved habitat conservation plan, as defined by the federal Endangered Species Act.

“We will meet the gold standard, or we won’t do it,” has been the refrain and reply to all environmental and public interest concerns. That long standing promise has suddenly been abandoned and massive new diversions will be made possible by the Tunnel Project without any accompanying habitat conservation plan.

This kind of drastic last-minute change in a mega-diversion project and its public interest implications cannot be adequately addressed within a 30-day comment period.

Public hearings are also necessary to allow the thousands of local residents in the Delta to adequately address their concerns to the Corps.

We believe that the currently proposed 30-day comment period is legally inadequate and constitutes a procedural injury within the meaning of applicable federal law.

Please give serious and immediate consideration to extending the comment period and providing for public hearings.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Another good article in the news today:

In the midst of the drought, many California counties are reporting record agricultural revenues, farm labor has actually increased by some measures, and fruit and vegetable prices have generally remained steady. In short, California agriculture appears to be more resilient than the doom-and-gloom stories propagated by agribusinesses and their supporters in Congress.

How? They have dramatically increased groundwater pumping.

On the other hand, This is causing roads and canals to buckle, causing hundreds of millions of dollars (or more) in damages to public infrastructure. Rural disadvantaged communities, households have seen their drinking water wells dry up completely.

What’s more, extensive lobbying by agribusiness has led to waivers of the minimum environmental protections for fish and wildlife in California’s rivers and streams, driving some salmon runs and other native fish and wildlife to the brink of extinction so that farmers and cities can divert even more water during the drought.

Read more here …

Good article in the L.A. Times:
Across California this summer, residents have been racking up water conservation numbers that defy expectations — a 27% reduction in June, followed by 31.3% in July.

Perhaps more impressive than the percentage figures, however, is the actual volume of water saved over two months: 414,800 acre-feet.

That’s a lot of water — more than twice the amount projected to be available annually from two proposed storage facilities that would cost a combined $3.5 billion to build: the Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River and an expansion of Shasta Dam.

“The reality is that there are so many soft paths that we can take that might have a lot less environmental impact and be a lot less expensive, and still meet our future demand,” said Newsha Ajami, director of urban water policy for Stanford’s Water in the West initiative. “This is probably a smarter tack than building more infrastructure, and moving more water around long distances.”

Of course Lester Snow, Delta Tunnel advocate, disagrees. He says “”Conservation is one of the tools, but I would not want to count on it completely.”

Hopefully, though, the advocates opposed to major infrastructure projects to move water around and who propose, instead, regional self-sufficiency, will win out. Else they will destroy the Delta with a huge construction project resulting in empty tunnels many years as snow in the Sierras becomes less prevelant.

There’s a new petition to sign to oppose the California WaterFix and the Delta Tunnels. Sign before the October 30th comment period deadline.

To personalize it, submit your own thoughts and comments.

I signed!