Tunnel(s) | Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

Archive for the 'Tunnel(s)' Category

Westlands versus the Orcas

Published August 9, 2013 Fish , News and Events , Tunnel(s) Leave a Comment

That sounds like an odd title – right? What is the connection between California’s Central Valley Agribusiness and Puget Sound Orcas?

We know Westlands Water District is working hard on the Peripheral Tunnel plan which will wipe out Delta farmers and communities from north to south, I didn’t know they were after Orcas, too.

OrcasInCanada
Orca J Pod sighted by Mike, Jan and friends while in Canada

Researching, I found that the Westlands Water District (our “favorite” player in the Peripheral Tunnel scam) had been suing the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) to take Puget Sound’s critically endangered orcas off the endangered species list. Fortunately, on August 3, the NMFS denied their requests. It seemed very odd to me that Westlands Water District would be going after the Northwest Orcas.

However, they have been trying to rid the Delta of striped bass, saying the bass were the reason for the salmon’s demise (even though both species have lived together harmoniously for over 100 years). Could it have just been a coincidence that the Westlands drive to eliminate bass started right after very loud and numerous bass fishing organizations began speaking out against the BDCP plan? The bass were safe, we thought, when in February 2012 the California Fish and Game Commission rejected the request to make fishing law changes that would result in the end of the striped bass in the Delta and instead named them as a native species. Last week, however, we heard Westlands at the Fresno Delta Water Meeting continue to voice the need to get rid of bass. They never give up.

Obviously they believe they can affect the web of life not only in the Sacramento Delta but in the entire Pacific and eliminate anything that eats salmon rather than accept the fact that exporting too much fresh water from the Delta has been what is ruining the salmon runs (at least according to the NMFS report, the US Army Corp of Engineers report and independent salmon experts).

What’s next? Will Westlands call for the extinction of seals and bears?

For more details on the orcas, I found this article from August 2009 Groups Defend Salmon and Whales from Agribusiness Attack.

Here’s a summary about what happened and why (with my editorial comments included):

The National Marine Fisheries Service on June 4, 2009 released an 800-page biological opinion, a plan to prevent Sacramento River salmon runs from plunging over the abyss of extinction. This plan replaced one issued in 2004 by the Bush administration, in a classic case of political manipulation over the objections of federal fisheries scientists, that sent salmon runs into steep decline. Conservation groups, fishing groups and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe filed the lawsuit that resulted in the court order that mandated the federal fishery agency to rewrite the biological opinion.
Westlands and 29 other water agencies then filed a lawsuit against the biological opinion on June 15 [interjection – that’s really fast to file a lawsuit against an 800-page document – these guys must have tons of lawyers], claiming that the National Marine Fisheries Service should have prepared an environmental impact statement before adopting a salmon recovery plan that “will divert hundreds of thousands of acre feet of California’s freshwater supplies into the ocean.” The water district tried to portray a scenario of “imminent doom” if the court-ordered plan was allowed to proceed.

“Denying this much water to California is going to do obvious, serious and enduring damage to habitat, to wetlands, and to other endangered species,” said Tom Birmingham, the general manager of Westlands. [Huh? How is fresh water flowing through the Delta going to damage habitat, wetlands, and fish?]

“And it will put tens of thousands of people out of work, which affects public health and safety in myriad ways.” [This again illustrates how the exporters who have the rights only to “excess” water have negotiated contracts for much more than there is. Although they will never obtain the full amount of their contracts unless the Delta is run dry, their continual chant is that their water allotment is being “cut” even though the contract’s specific wording is they only have rights to water if there is “excess”. Instead of planning based on how much water is likely, they continue to plan for more water than exists and thus claim it is putting people “out of work”.]
Fishing groups, Indian Tribes and environmental organizations intervened in the lawsuit to defend the biological opinion, arguing that to keep exporting massive amounts of water to corporate agribusiness and southern California will destroy the salmon and the people that depend upon them.

I particularly like these quotes in the article:

“You cannot continue to destroy the things around you under the guise of economic growth, and expect the people to continue to believe in that lie forever. It is time to stop this madness. It is time to defeat these greedy and untruthful interests,” said Mulcahy.

Ludicrous State Economic Plan

Published August 9, 2013 Economics of the BDCP , News and Events , Tunnel(s) Leave a Comment

Local Contra Costa County residents were infuriated to read the “Local News” front page headline in Tuesday’s Contra Costa Times that blared “Tunnels may be lucrative”.

The headline should have read “Tunnels may be ludicrous“. The slanted State Economic Report just released is easy to pick apart yet the Delta local newspaper aids in spreading the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) marketing hype.

BDCP economist, David Sundling, continues to try to make 2 – 2 = 4. Sunding continues to use “new economic activity” numbers based on Westland’s inflated agriculture numbers and other unjustifiable benefits. He does not subtract the negative impacts that the tunnels will cause to Delta communities due to the loss of boating and recreation among other impacts.

Gene Beley writes in detail about the numerous serious impacts that will occur up and down the Delta, a heartbreaking “must read”.

Although it seems obvious to Delta users that construction activity and loss of waterways would cause huge economic loss to marinas and marina-based businesses, home values, and property values, these losses are not adequately considered in Sundling’s analysis.

The BDCP claims these marinas “can still operate … ” Untrue. Those marinas will not be able to maintain operations. Boaters will move their boats to unaffected marinas; visitors won’t come to camp and eat at restaurants during construction where they will view tunnel muck trucks 24×7 and to listen to construction noise. Boaters won’t keep their boats at marinas where boating and recreation activity is blocked or greatly reduced. In Sundling’s economic analysis though, because the marinas “can still operate”, there is apparently no economic loss.

They admit that “Impacts on water‐based recreation (water‐skiing, wakeboarding, tubing) in these areas [the South Delta] would be long‐term and therefore considered significant and unavoidable.” The mitigation plan is to improve Brannan Island State Park and/or The Meadows (both in the north). Because of the BDCP Plan for “mitigation” in the north, they can count it as no net loss and can make up their own numbers about how many people will flood to the North Delta for bird watching and boating.

Since Discovery Bay (DB) young people can’t take their boats to Brannan Island after school or on weekends, due to fewer waterways, traffic will increase and with it more accidents and risk. Then people will move away. Communities will suffer huge economic losses. I haven’t seen any of this in Sunding’s economic analysis.


Boating & Recreation Now: Small boating near Discovery Bay and from Mildred Anchorage (red circles) and anchorages (blue circle)		South Delta Impacts: Loss of small boat recreation; almost no local anchorage sites. (Mildred will have construction blockages to the West, muck ponds.).

On the other side of the coin, the agriculture numbers are based on having an infinite supply of water even though the contracts already are for more water than exists in the Delta. Time and time again we’ve seen reports of the economic benefits of agriculture in the Central Valley that time and time again the legislature or independent economists have proven to be false.

According to Sunding, there is a “benefit” in the state’s report of making the Delta home to nearly 180,000 temporary new jobs, which will be full time but for one year only. Does the Delta have the roads and infrastructure for these workers? Is there a real benefit to the state in creating 180,000 temporary one-year jobs while taking away nearly 37,000 farm jobs, loss of marinas, and closure of recreation access resulting in abandoned homes?

The article even throws in a statement that the plan would preserve “the long-term economic vitality of the state [including] the defense industry, technology in Silicon Valley,” even though the plan does not provide one drop of additional water or reliability for urban users in Silicon Valley or LA.

Adam Scow, of Food & Water Watch seems correct when he says: “They’re either deliberately cooking the books or refusing to do a real cost analysis. It’s a misappropriation of taxpayer resources.”

Why did the State Release an Economic Plan?

The reason is on page 2 of the Contra Costa Times article: “Brown administration officials pointed out that Monday’s study is not required; rather it is part of the extensive research being undertaking in designing the plan, informing the public and helping guide policy makers.”

Isn’t that just another way of saying the release of this State Economic Plan was timed for and it’s total purpose was marketing? It was produced to sway public opinion into thinking the tunnels will be good for the state instead of only for the handful of powerful agribusiness corporations who will truly benefit? To sway legislators throughout the state that they can have a little pork through “mitigation” projects if they just drop their opposition and let the tunnels go through?

Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta, was quoted with her answer: “It’s the purest piece of propaganda they’ve come out with yet.”

While the newspaper where the damage will be done’s headlines blare how “lucrative” the tunnels will be, a more balanced title was today’s Sacramento Bee: “Study Touting Economic Boon of Delta water tunnels draws criticism“. I also like mine.

Where’s the Press Coverage?

Published August 1, 2013 News and Events , Tunnel(s) 4 Comments

If you want to help get more press coverage, one member suggests Letters to the Editor. See “How to get your Letters to the Editor Published” at the bottom of this post.

Because the citizens of the Delta are protesting and marching – yet where’s the Press?

After the Hood Fire Chief attended a town meeting where Melissa Terry (who is with the North Delta Water Agency and also sits on the board of the Bay Area & Delta Conservation Plan) told Hood residents how their livelihoods would be greatly impacted by the tunnels, the Chief wanted as many “Stop the Tunnel” signs as possible on the roads leading to Courtland for the Courtland Pear Fair last weekend.

Barbara Daly from Clarksburg manned a booth for STCDA at the Courtland Pear Fair Sunday (thanks again, Barbara!) and said that the people coming into the Fair had seen all the road signs and were full of questions like “What Tunnels?” Our booth and the Restore the Delta’s booth were next to each other and the crowds kept both booths busy all day. Barbara said it was amazing how many people living in that area had no idea about the tunnels or the imminent effect they would have on their lives.

Yet Courtland, Clarksburg, Hood farmers and people who have been following the BDCP plans feel like they are living in “ground zero.” Their quiet, scenic farming communities are where the BDCP is planning to build the massive, multi-story pumping stations and forebay. Family farmers are being threatened with eminent domain. The construction will block farm roads, keeping farmers from getting to market. What are now scenic views will instead be of the hugh industrial structures. Tunnel muck ponds will destroy their pear orchards. As Barbara said, “If the tunnels go through, that will be the end of the Pear Fairs.”

Gene Beley has posted a video taken during the Courtland Pear Fair last weekend (snaps below taken from his video).

The town came together to build floats. They gathered up “Save the Tunnel” signs and made their own to decorate floats and wave in the parade. Check out the video. It looks like about half of the parade was devoted to stopping the tunnels including the Restore the Delta coffin pulled by a specter. But the only thing I’ve seen in the press about the community uprising is a small paragraph in Vacaville’s “The Reporter”. I liked the title, Delta Residents Hit the Streets, but only one real paragraph was devoted to the community protest and the rest about CalTrans removing “Stop the Tunnel” signs illegally.

A community parading to stop the tunnels looks like big news to me. This isn’t a standard protest – this is a real-life community event overtaken by the fear of what these tunnels are about to do to their community and their way of life.

When will the press start covering what these tunnels are going to do to the Delta Communities? The tunnel proponents’ marketing campaign leads people to believe it’s a fish versus farmers battle and the BDCP is the only way to insure clean drinking water to LA and Silicon Valley while saving the fish. Even people living in the affected areas are often unaware of the true tunnel impacts.

We were very happy the Discovery Bay on the bus to Sacramento made the 6 O’clock News in Sacramento thanks to Melinda Meza who lives in Discovery Bay and is a KCRA Sacramento Channel 3 reporter. However, I haven’t seen any follow-on in the press. People massing to go to Sacramento to protest, community events overtaken by the concern about what this huge tunnel project is going to do and yet there is very little press coverage.

Where is the hard-hitting investigative reporting asking: “What are you going to do for people whose farms are taken away by eminent domain, for communities who face economic turndown during this tunnel construction project, for people whose home values will be affected?” Or ask the obvious: “Those are great goals but are they doable without fresh water?” Or better still: “Who will really profit primarily from this boondoggle?”

Where are Woodward and Bernstein?

How can we get more press coverage? One of our press-knowledgable members says we should get more Letters to the Editor in major newspapers.

How to get your Letters to the Editor Published

Here are hints from the SF Chronicle’s Editor on how to get letters to the editor accepted. One thing he looks for is the opportunity for personal perspectives that force readers with very different life experiences to consider another viewpoint. Read his hints.

Then send them off. Here are Links to Newsletters – Where to send your Letter to the Editor with information about maximum number of words, etc.

Tunnel Damage – They won’t just go “Under” the Delta

Published July 25, 2013 Tunnel(s) 1 Comment

The current configuration of the old “Peripheral Canal” project is now being sold as underground tunnels. The “Peripheral Canal” in 1982 was a plan to build an above-the-ground canal around the Delta near Stockton somewhat where the current BDCP map below shows their so-called “Eastern Alignment” (in green). The PC project was a bad plan because it removed fresh water before it flowed through the Delta and was voted down by a wide margin. The new Tunnel Project is even worse.

The 1982 Peripheral Canal, besides removing much needed fresh water from the Delta, would have had the same pumping intakes that now threaten the lovely communities along the Sacramento River like Clarksburg, Hood, Courtland. However, the old PC would have preserved many of the scenic central waterways (although they would have still ended up filled with brackish salt water and dead fish).

Fast forward to 2013 and the “Peripheral Tunnels” are the current project plan. These tunnels are still referred to as the “Peripheral Tunnels” because they do all of the environmental damage the Peripheral Canal would have imposed. However, they have an even worse effect on the scenic Delta itself. During construction, waterways will be ripped up, the noise of pile drivers 24×7, barges and construction will make it hard for boaters to enjoy a peaceful outing and even harder for birds and wildlife to remain in the area.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) proposing the new tunnel project studied three alignments as shown in the map below. Besides the Eastern Alignment, a “Western Alignment” that would have gone somewhat around the Delta although I don’t know the impact on Rio Vista and other scenic towns in that area and a through-the-middle “Central Alignment.” Instead of a Canal, they plan to go 150 feet below the Delta. But don’t feel placated that it means less impact to the scenic beauty. The construction is not all “below” the Delta because to build the tunnels requires creating a swath of construction destruction from Hood to the Clifton Court Forebay. The “chosen” alignment is the Central Alignment.

For Delta farmers, boaters and people in the South Delta, the worst choice was the “Central Alignment.” When it was an above-the-ground canal, the plan was to cement-wall in the entire core of the Delta including Mildred Island – virtually wiping out boating in the South Delta. This was for many the worst choice albeit the shortest. Because if the state is trying to preserve the scenic beauty of the Delta, as stated in the Delta Plan, then building cement walls down the middle was a disastrous idea. Some felt appeased hearing that instead of a canal, the new plan was tunnels going “beneath” the Delta. But that is a misconception.

They won’t go under the Delta and leave it’s scenic beauty unharmed. No – the construction project will rip up the entire central portion for 10-20 years and leave smelly tunnel muck in it’s wake.

These new tunnels create all of the environmental damage the canal would have done plus the construction project will destroy numerous scenic waterways including half of the scenic waterways in the South Delta. Huge barges – football size – will be constructed along the 35 mile stretch. Pile driving 24×7, lights, power lines – right next to the Hilton fireworks display area where traditionally thousands of boats anchor out for a week of festivities around the July 4th event which will cause boaters to look elsewhere than boating for that holiday for years. Similarly Mildred Island anchorage will be disrupted with a football size dock next to it, pile driving, lights. It is unlikely that the hundreds of boats, if they can even get into the anchorage, will want to gather there for the big weekends and events such as the Labor Day SeaRay “circle” of over 100 boats each year. When summer weekends and holidays don’t attract boaters to the marinas, businesses will suffer, people will move away.

Delta farmers are threatened from all sides. Many are being told the state can take away their family farms by eminent domain for habitat projects. Some of their farms are planned as tunnel muck sites which would totally destroy their lands, homes and facilities. And for many others still able to keep their farms, the plans to move and close roads needed to get their produce to market will put them out of business.

Melinda Terry, manager of the North Delta Water Agency and participant on the BDCP panels, describes the construction horror in detail in a recent video and write-up in the Central Valley Business Times.

Very little information is offered by the BDCP about why the Central Alignment is the chosen alignment. Perhaps since it’s a bit shorter there’s a cost advantage. But if you are trying to protect a scenic wonderland you don’t put a 10-15 year construction project through it’s heart. If you wanted to restore the Yosemite Valley, would you dig up the floor for 10 years? Bring in power lines, lights, pile drivers 24 x 7? Scare away all of the native species? Of course not.

Yet this is what the Delta Plan is allowing due to its lack of real requirements about what projects need to do to “save” the Delta.

More on the BDCP July 17 Meeting

Published July 23, 2013 News and Events , Tunnel(s) Leave a Comment

“Stop the Tunnel” protesters are being seen in many press article pictures covering the BDCP meeting. A very comprehensive article released yesterday in Maven’s Notebook.

Protesters outside the meeting – view Maven’s Notebook to view more photos

Here, Maven provides an extensive transcript of the first half of the meeting. Sections I find enlightening are Jason Peltier’s (Westlands Water District representative) viewpoints. He totally ignores that fact that because water contracts in California are for 2 to 5 times the amount of water in the estuary and that Westlands only has the lowest tier rights, of course they will NEVER get 100%. He ignores the fact is that his area’s farmers allocations will run from 0% (dry years like 2013) up to maybe 60% of their full contracts (very wet years). I’m not sure what the original concept was when these contracts were issued but if you have the lowest level rights for excess water and your contract is for more water than exists, it seems irresponsible to plan for 100% and assume that there will never be a drought or dry water years. Yet his viewpoint is that their contracts are being “cut … reallocated or reserved to the environment.” As long as there is no acceptance that the amount of water in the Delta is finite, they will obviously continue to take more and more (as they have done the past 20 years increasing almond acreage) until there is no water left.

Related is today’s article that water use is skyrocketing by Tehachapi County farmers due to increased agricultural footprint in that area: Tehachapi News “Water Use Skyrockets”. It seems so irresponsible to continue to expand agricultural acreage in the Central Valley when there already is not enough water in the Delta for the acreage expansions from over the past 10-20 years. Which circles back to the clear fact that any plan needs to start with clarity about how much water is needed to maintain a healthy Delta (i.e., the “Delta Flows”) versus can be exported (the “excess”) and plan from there.

I always find comments by Melinda Terry, North Delta Water Agency worthwhile in these BDCP meetings. In Maven’s Notebook, read Melinda Terry’s comments during the BDCP meeting about the “Funding and Benefits Assumptions” and especially further down under “Questions and Answers Part 2 – Equal Time for Delta Impacts”. Take time to read everything Melinda Terry says there because she points out the real negative impacts that will occur from the construction destruction up and down the Delta to communities, farmers and boating which the BDCP is ignoring.

I also always appreciate Bob Wright, Friends of the River’s comments: “ … This is simply not a permittable project under the endangered species act. To say that taking those kinds of quantities of fresh water away from those fish, including the winter and spring run Chinook salmon, would not adversely modify their critical habitat does not pass the laugh out loud test. … “ Plus Dr. Jeff Michaels, UOP, always provides logical economic input and takes the BDCP to task: “… without a cost allocation, how can you evaluate financial feasibility?” And Dr. Michaels questioned why the tunnel alternative was chosen when “… the through-Delta alternative performed better for all the fish species, which is what this is supposed to be about.”

Maven’s report quits before the great comments by the fellow in the yellow shirt from the American River who tells Jason Peltier to stop saying it’s “between fish and farmers” because the truth is that it’s “people versus people” and his other interesting remarks including that it’s real people, communities, farmers in the Delta are being affected, not just fish. Mike McCleery, Discovery Bay, commented on how from his experience in the commercial sector, the BDCP’s low return-on-investment even before inflation and overruns makes it an unreasonable project to pursue from a financial standpoint; how no Delta levee has ever fallen down during an earthquake, even in 1906; and asked why Dr. Pyke’s proposed newer technology of permeable layers could not be used at Clifton Court Forebay to protect fish to allow continuance of the current through-Delta option rather than add any new tunnels. Michael Brodsky, STCDA Legal Council, caught the panel in a previous misstatement: their claim that environmental protection would be available even after a take permit was issued because the permit could be withdrawn later if the agencies did not manage pumping operations effectively and that permits have been withdrawn in the past. Brodsky’s research revealed that according to Fish & Game, no take permit has ever been revoked in California and the example stated at the previous BDCP meeting was erroneous. Brodsky also re-iterated and expanded on his objection to the BDCP “adaptive management” structure and why it cannot protect the co-equal goals as long as water contractors like Peltier have veto power. From Peltier’s statements made earlier in the meeting Peltier clearly does not believe that fish need fresh water. Thus the logical assumption is that Westlands would always use its veto power along every step of the process which would negate any objections made by Fish & Game or others trying to protect the salmon.

Webcast of the entire meeting.

Earlier Press pixs about the protest:
Original Channel 3 write-up and video: http://www.kcra.com/news/discovery-bay-residents-protest-twin-tunnel-project/-/11797728/21024494/-/127pxic/-/index.html

A bad day at the office for Jason Peltier greeted by protesters outside the BDCP Meeting (includes video): http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=23838

Discovery Bay got “On the Bus”

Published July 18, 2013 News and Events , Tunnel(s) 2 Comments

The Discovery Bay’s “Get On the Bus” event filled the bus plus got great TV coverage – thanks to Melinda Meza and KCRA Sacramento Channel 3 for showing up at both Discovery Bay and Sacramento! Amanda Dove and her kids did a great job on camera. See more from KCRA TV.

The DWR rep Nancy Vogel who was also interviewed by KCRA gave the party line that the BDCP is going to “restore the habitat” even though WE all know the main thing fish need is fresh water and that is what the BDCP plan will be removing.

The construction project, tunnel muck, and lack of fresh water will seriously impact all Delta communities and Delta farmers. Let alone the poor farmers who’s farms are being threatened to be taken away by eminent domain.

It was great to see Discovery Bay getting notice on TV because for us, like the rest of the people living in the Delta area, it’s about our way of life on the Delta.

Getting on the bus (photo by KCRA)

Even the kids came out to protest (photo by KCRA)

Discovery Bay citizens outside the BDCP meeting (photo by R. Wisdom, DB Press)

“Stop the Tunnels” signs line the BDCP meeting walls (photo by R. Wisdom, DB Press)

CalTrans’ Sign Removal

Published July 10, 2013 News and Events , Tunnel(s) 3 Comments

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.

Display a Lawn Sign

Published June 19, 2013 News and Events , Tunnel(s) Leave a Comment

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

STCDA Lawn Sign
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!”

Senate Hearing on the BDCP

Published May 16, 2013 News and Events , Tunnel(s) 1 Comment

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.”

Conflicting Needs

Published May 16, 2013 News and Events , Tunnel(s) Leave a Comment

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.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)