Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

Help us put an end to the Delta Tunnel project!

Support our fundraiser for the year. If you think you need to be a golfer to participate, you’re wrong. All you need to do is eat 🙂

Join us for a fabulous evening starting with appetizers, followed by a sit-down prime rib dinner (or substitute if you don’t eat meat but if you do, the club’s prime rib is awesome). Then enjoy a lively auction hosted by Mike Guzzardo.

Fun, fun – and for a worthy cause.

July 21 at the Discovery Bay Golf & Country Club

Sign up using this form: Sign Up Form or just email Jan at stcda@NoDeltaGates.com and let us know you want to come.

We need your support!

All the info is here . . .

CA Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW), being paid by Metropolitan Water District (MWD), recently completed a report called the “Franks Tract Feasibility Study.” It is a plan to fill in half of the Franks Tract State Recreation Area to create Delta Smelt habitat plus build a salinity wall to keep salt water from getting to the export pumps at Clifton Court Forebay.

I found that the report has significant flaws.

The problem with the report is it picks the wrong place for a Delta Smelt habitat project. There are other islands nearby just as viable and already owned by MWD.

Did I mention that Franks Tract is the primary bass fishing area in the state (or some say, the nation) and the plan calls to reduce bass habitat (i.e., get rid of the bass)? Since bass fishing is a big deal to the economy of Bethel Island and much of Northern California, getting rid of the bass is not a really good idea. Particularly when the CDFW’s own Deputy Director says the department’s position is that predation (by bass) isn’t the main cause of fish decline.

And while the proposed salinity barrier may help the exporters, it makes things worse in other areas of the Delta.

Here are the details.

1 – About the Delta Smelt

You know me. I love the environment. But why destroy Franks Tract, a State Recreation Area prized for bass fishing, hunting, and boating? And while they’re at it, destroy the economy of Bethel Island by walling off marinas (Russo’s and Bethel Harbor) and other businesses (like the Rusty Porthole and the Sugar Barge) from access directly in from Franks Tract. There are weekly bass fishing tournaments going out from one of those places, which are a huge part of Bethel Island’s economy.

Why Franks Tract? First, there are islands nearby, owned by MWD, some planned already as habitat, which could have been the focus of the study instead of Franks Tract, which is so important for local economies. MWD owns Webb, Bouldin, Holland, and Bacon Island. Where is the analysis of why Franks Tract was chosen?

They say it is one of the less subsided islands so requires less fill dirt (which is expensive, I guess).

While Franks Tract is less subsided than some other islands, the west side of Webb has an area the size of the proposed tidal marsh which has both green and yellow (i.e., nearly as shallow); and the west side of Holland is 0-2.5 m. same as Franks. MWD owns both of those already so altering them would not impact communities or Delta activities.

Before destroying local communities, other alternatives that can satisfy the same objections need to be reviewed. But they weren’t.

Why Franks Tract? The choice is claimed in the report due to two paper by Grossman which called out “hot spots” where Delta Smelt face predation. First, in that report, Grossman lists 13 “hot spots” (like the HORB) and most of them are where dams or other blockages occurs, trapping the smelt and making them easy prey. So if dams are a problem, why put a dam down the middle of Franks Tract and create more areas for predation? Using Grossman’s papers as justification for focusing narrowly on Franks Tract is not valid.

Expanded, the first goal is stated as: “create habitat suitable for Delta Smelt.” and objectives are, “Key restoration objectives include reducing the extent of aquatic weeds, decrease predation on Delta Smelt and other native fishes by lowering habitat suitability for non-native species, and improve food webs.” But, are those the right objectives? The goal to “decrease predation on Delta Smelt and other native fishes by lowering habitat suitability for non-native species, and improve food webs” must be challenged.

Predation is not the major issue for Delta Smelt. Lack of fresh water flow is.

The objective of lowering habitat suitability for non-native species means bass. And bass fishing is a core component of the Delta and needs to be supported and preserved.

The theory (that the bass, which were introduced in the 1870s, are suddenly to blame for the salmon and other native species’ demise) is hotly contested among scientists and should not be used as a primary reason to destroy the economy of the Delta by destroying the primary bass fishery, Franks Tract.

According to a 2016 Sacramento Bee article, CDFW’s own Deputy Director disagrees. The article states that:

Their [the State Agencies exporting water] concern is less about the fish and more about how the population declines affect their water supply and livelihoods. Court rulings empower the federal fisheries agencies that monitor species to govern water flows in the Delta, and their decisions often translate into pumping limits to keep fish from being harmed.

There’s too little known right now,” said Stafford Lehr, deputy director of the Wildlife and Fisheries Division of CDFW. “The consensus of the research is there’s more going on (with native fish declines) than predation. That’s the department’s position.”

Peter Moyle, a veteran fisheries scientist at UC Davis, is among the researchers who say striped bass are unfairly blamed for the declines in native fish. He described the striper as a “scapefish,” whose numbers have suffered marked declines in recent decades, alongside native fish. The real issue, he said, is what humans have done to the environment by over-allocating water to competing interests.

Scapefishing the bass has been going on since the bass fishermen testified to the Legislature against the exporters and made them a target. It’s like in my childrens’ book, “The Fable of the Farmer and the Fish.” The exporters want to find any excuse for why the fisheries are failing, except the obvious – too much water being exported.

In my opinion, their justification of Franks Tract as a location for a tidal marsh doesn’t hold water. Their research is lacking and better options are available.

So what about the second goal?

2 – Salinity Control

A year ago the State installed a rock dam in False River. That caused numerous issues and is a costly “emergency effort.” It wouldn’t have been needed if the State would balance the need every expanding almond orchards against available water and simply reduced exports. But alas, I repeat myself.

This project is supposed to be a long term fix for salinity coming into the Central Delta and Clifton Court Forebay.

Here’s their modeling about how their wall down the middle of Franks Tract will improve salinity control.

You can watch the simulation live at these links:

• Current Situation
• With Project

They are kind of mesmerizing to watch.

But their project causes salinity problems
What strikes me from the simulation, is that with the project, the salinity is always worse along the San Joaquin River and goes further inland. How will that affect the farmers that draw water up the San Joaquin towards Rio Vista? The write-up agrees that, “It potentially increases salinity on the main stem of the San Joaquin River between Jersey Point and San Andreas Landing.” Has the effect on farmers along the San Joaquin been studied?

Today, Bradford Island has access to fresh water during an outgoing tide as does Webb and Bouldin. With the “restoration” project, Bradford Island would be surrounded always with saltier water. That island is now used to raise cattle. The fresh water is needed to grow their feed and water them. What is the plan to compensate the Bradford Island owners?

Is this really better?

Well, here’s the answer:

With the project, the water quality at Clifton Court Forebay (where exports occur) improves. But, water quality will deteriorate along Middle River including Mildred Island. Since those are key water recreational areas, that is highly undesirable. Those are areas where humans swim and recreate. The impact on health needs to be included in this survey.

The goal shouldn’t be just to improve water quality for users south, it needs to include improved water quality for the in-Delta users.

Once again, our state agencies trade off health and safety for citizens in the Delta in order to facilitate exports for the southern users.

Piper Slough: The report says they need to do more modeling about the flows along Piper Slough. (That is the slough that goes next to Bethel Island, where all the marinas and home docks are). They claim the project wouldn’t increase flows “much” but how do you funnel all of the water from False River and Fisherman’s Cut down the small narrow Piper Slough, with the entire Franks Tract dammed, without causing a rush of water flow? It doesn’t make sense to me. I am worried about the boating safety, wear and tear on docks, etc.

Fisherman’s Cut: I am also concerned about the increased flow through Fisherman’s Cut. The report said it will not be as bad as when the False River Dam was installed, but that flow was totally unacceptable and created scouring concerns at the “Horseshoe” area of Bethel Island’s levees. This deserves more attention, including impact on the people with homes and docks along Fisherman’s Cut.

What does it mean to take local concerns into account?

The report talks about how local concerns were incorporated. It recognizes that, “Most [it should have said “ALL”] stakeholders strongly objected to the location and configuration of the proposed tidal marsh restoration areas in Franks and Little Franks Tract because it would block some marina and boat traffic to residential areas.” [That isn’t even worded logically – it blocks businesses AND residential docks.]

The report lists the negative impacts in sidebars, in sections. Yet the project continues ahead with the original proposal. I guess that is what it means when State Agencies say they are communicating and listening to those people affected. It means the list the concerns, nod, then move ahead.

This project is totally unacceptable. Alternatives that do not affect Franks Tract must be evaluated.

More Info . . .

This is our only fundraising event of the year!

I know a lot of people wait until the last minute to sign up but you’re making me nervous! If we don’t get more soon we may need to cancel it. Please sign up now !!!!

Event Date: July 21 (Saturday) at the Discovery Bay Golf and Country Club
Registration at noon
Prime rib dinner at 6 p.m.

We need to let the car dealerships offering our great hole-in-one cars that we have enough players soon!

Please email me ASAP and let me know if you want to golf, come to dinner, or be a sponsor: stcda@NoDeltaGates.com.

More info is on our home page http://www.NoDeltaTunnels.com. Forms are also linked below.

Now is not the time to give up in our battle against the Delta Tunnels! We need to bring our expert witnesses to testify. We can succeed but we need more money to take the battle to court.

You don’t need to be a golfer to participate.

Come to the dinner and enjoy a great prime rib meal and live auction with Mike Guzzardo as our auctioneer – always fun.

Become a sponsor.

We still need our Gold Sponsor and Silver Sponsor.

• Thank you to our Bronze Sponsors:
  Automatic Fender by Boat Innovation

  Dave and Kathy Readler

• Thank you to our Bronze Media Sponsors:
  Brentwood Press and Delta Sun Times




• And thank you to our Hole Sponsors:
  Bethel Harbor
  Bob & Sandy Smith
  Brian Embom
  Commodore Cruises
  Contra Costa Blinds
  Dr. Mike & Jan Todorovic
  Ed Turman
  Gary & Rosemary Colledge
  Rivers End Marina

But without golfers, the event cannot happen !!!!

Sign up for golf and/or to be a sponsor using our On-Line Golf Registration Form

Or for dinner and/or to be a sponsor using our Dinner-Only/Sponsor Form

Or to be a sponsor using our Dinner-Only/Sponsor Form

If Gov. Jerry Brown wanted tunnels badly enough, he would have made sure that his state agencies weren’t going to fail him, again. But he didn’t.

Just like the Oroville Dam construction failures, where the Department of Water Resources chose to take design shortcuts to save time and money with the nearly disastrous result of the spillway failure and evacuation of the 188,000 people from Oroville and surrounding communities, once again the DWR has taken shortcuts that risk lives, safety, and more to save a few bucks.

While we know the entire concept of building tunnels to remove fresh water out at the Sacramento River before it has a chance to flow through the Delta will be a disaster for the estuary, waterfowl, fish, farmers, and local communities, let’s assume for arguments sake that Gov. Brown and his agencies have convinced themselves that the Tunnels are a good idea.

Then they should have made sure to design the project in a way that was safe and responsible. But they didn’t. That is why they get an “F”.

What did they do wrong?

First, they picked a route for the tunnels long ago, before doing any adequate study.

In 2009 when I attended a BDCP workshop, they were talking about their “Through-Delta” route. Since then, they continued their focus on one route, the Through-Delta Route.

Their other alternatives in the EIR, of a Western Route and an Eastern Route, seem to be there mainly to satisfy CEQA requirements to present alternatives, but have little substance. The Eastern Route was 10 miles longer, hence $1 billion to $1.7 billion more. For cost reasons alone, they never performed a real analysis of that route. Worse they only glossed over other better alternatives to tunnels like desalination, recycling, or even Dr. Pyke’s Sherman Island proposal.

They picked their “Preferred Alternative” early on, made minor changes to it, and roared ahead. Even though:

1. Years ago their own Independent Science Board told them the soils in the Delta, along their through-Delta route, were not adequate for tunneling. They recommended moving to the Eastern Route where the soils are more stable.
2. Although their cost justification for the tunnels is heavily weighed on the destruction earthquakes may do to levees in the Delta and claimed impact to the water system, the tunnels are not being designed to withstand the same major earthquake in the Delta. This failure will be made worse due to the unstable soils along the Through-Delta Route.
3. They do not even list the levees as important infrastructure and have not analyzed the effect of tunneling under the levees. Levee failure will be made worse due to the unstable soils along the Through-Delta Route.
4. They know there are numerous gas wells along the through-tunnel route, not the Eastern route. (One of the biggest gas fields in California). Even though Metropolitan Water District hit a gas well when building the tunnel to Castaic some years ago, killing 17 workers, they again are ignoring the warning signs.
5. They do not appear to be accurately reporting the soil stability under the main channel.
6. They are ignoring the warnings that tunneling in soft soils under railroad piers and pipelines is unsafe, they are planning to do just that under the Santa Fe Railroad and East Bay MUD’s water pipeline. This is made worse due to the unstable soils along the Through-Delta Route.

Once again, the state agencies are focused on cost and schedule, not worker safety or other implications.

References:
WaterFix tunneling under levees
Tunnels not being designed to withstand maximum earthquake in the Delta
Gas wells

URGENT: We need golfers / dinner attendees / sponsors for our major Fundraiser of the year!
Right now we don’t have enough golfers for the tournament or for the Hole-In-One car sponsors to provide cars for our July 21 event. We don’t have enough dinners sold to hold the event! If I don’t have you down, please email me ASAP and let me know if you want to golf, come to dinner, or be a sponsor: stcda@NoDeltaGates.com. More info is on our home page http://www.NoDeltaTunnels.com. Forms are also linked below.

Now is not the time to give up!

While I’ve been passing out flyers about our upcoming Fundraising Event (July 21), several people have said, “But I thought the fight against the Delta Tunnels is over. Didn’t they win?”

Heck, no I retort.

It may sound like a lot of bad news – more than good – has been coming out about the tunnels. But the fact of the matter is they are still where they were a year ago: working to obtain the permits from the Water Board to begin construction. STCDA, using your generous donations, hired expert witnesses and prepared an awesome case showing why building the tunnels would be so detrimental on Delta communities and waterways. No construction can start before they get their permits.

If the Water Board awards the permits even with all of the strong objections and testimonies presented to them about why that would be a terrible decision, then we need to plead our case in court.

We need to bring our expert witnesses back to testify. That is why we are out fundraising now.

Our major fundraiser is our golf/dinner event July 21.

NOTE: You don’t need to be a golfer to participate.

Come to the dinner and enjoy a great prime rib meal and live auction with Mike Guzzardo as our auctioneer – always fun.

Become a sponsor.

We still need our Gold Sponsor and Silver Sponsor.

Thank you to Automatic Fender by Boat Innovation for being our Bronze Sponsor.
Thank you also to Brentwood Press and Delta Sun Times for being Bronze Media Sponsors.

And thank you for the many businesses and individuals that have been stepping up as Hole Sponsors.

MAINLY: We need more golfers and dinner guests !!!!

Right now we don’t have enough golfers for the tournament or for the Hole-In-One car sponsors to provide HIO cars for our event.

Sign up for golf and/or to be a sponsor using our On-Line Golf Registration Form

Or for dinner and/or to be a sponsor using our Dinner-Only/Sponsor Form

Or to be a sponsor using our Dinner-Only/Sponsor Form

Remember the Monty Python skit from the Holy Grail? “Bring out your dead…” Well, like the old guy, I say, “We aren’t dead yet!”

And remember:

Together we can win!

I know July 21 (the date of our Save the Delta Charity Golf Event) seems like a long ways off, but it would sure help us plan if we could get the golf sign-ups going early.

To incentivize you, we’re offering $5 of raffle tickets to any player who contacts us by June 15th with their intent-to-play and ANOTHER $5 in raffle tickets if we receive their checks by the end of June (via mail to the Drakes Drive address or in person). So $10 of prize raffle tickets for golfers who make both deadlines.

OTHER PLUSES: It helps us to get insight into the player list. AND you are assured a spot in the event.

So sign up early!!!

Registration forms: Excel Version (you can fill out and email back to me) or PDF Version (mail to me at 5672 Drakes Drive, Discovery Bay, CA 94505)

WE ALSO ARE LOOKING FOR SPONSORS AND RAFFLE/AUCTION PRIZE DONORS.

Email me at stcda@NoDeltaGates.com if you have any questions.

I’m not completely surprised when I read a story like this taking place in West Virginia, land of coal miners needing to justify fossils fuels for their livelihood. This article in the Guardian today talks about a group of people up in the trees trying to block a pipeline construction project going through the forest they own (or did before eminent domain) and trying to keep their pristine stream clean, a stream that they can now drink from directly.

But we are encountering exactly the same mentality from California’s Governor regarding the Delta Tunnels.

“These [West Virginia] activists hold the typical concerns of having a gas pipeline run through the yard: if it leaks it poisons the water, the font of the incredible biodiversity in the area; there’s a two-and-a-half-mile blast radius if it explodes; the pipeline is taking their land through eminent domain against their will for resource extraction that they feel will not benefit them or their neighbors.”

It sounds like their State is going to ruin a pristine area – sounds like the Delta.

“Virginia’s governor, Ralph Northam, took $50,000 from MVP’s largest shareholder, EQT Corp, and another $199,251 from Dominion Energy, major shareholder of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline being built nearby.” Sounds like Jerry Brown taking $90,000 from Stewart Resnick and other Central Valley farmers before making his decision. And the Director of the DWR is now Karla Nemeth, wife of an executive strategist with the Metropolitan Water District. Too much corruption and money in government.

These people weren’t always activists, but recently became so. Their resistance started almost four years before that. They went through all of the steps to fight it: the comment periods unheeded, the independent environmental and archeological studies snubbed, the court challenges lost, the demonstrations ignored, the politicians petitioned and rebuffed.

Sound familiar? We in the Delta have been doing all that for twice as long and also have had our comments unheeded our attendance at their meetings ignored and rebuffed.

California is supposed to be the environmental leader, the protector of the oceans and rivers, believers in science-based government. Yet here we are. If the US House Bill with the rider to not allow law suits on the WaterFix passes, since law suits may be our final chance to stop the Delta Tunnels, construction might begin. I’ll be interested to see how long the tree sitters can stop construction in West Virginia.

Maybe our next Governor will understand we want California to be an environmental leader again and protect the Delta.

Here’s a summary of the latest info I’ve found regarding candidates and propositions for the Delta:

Candidates for Governor of California

Democrats:

• #1 Delaine Eastin (D) Strongly opposed: She had the best answer of all of the candidates: ”The tunnels are the Peripheral Canal with a lid on it. The state isn’t doing water planning. We’re just doing expensive things like tunnels — an old idea.” She has also stated she favors groundwater recharge and not more dams. That is the right direction. She’s strong and tough and not taking big money so wouldn’t be influenced by the L.A. Developers and big agribusiness owners.
• #2 Antonio Villaraigosa (D) Opposed to the tunnels: He wants to look at all the options first, like conservation, and the latest technologies and alternatives to the tunnels. (I put him #2 because he wants to “look at other options first” and didn’t say he would not go ahead with the tunnels. Plus he’s from L.A. and on the side of the Central Valley farmers, so it worries me things could change once elected).
• #3 John Chiang (D) Sounds like he is Opposed: He has stated “My first priority is to preserve the delta.” I haven’t seen him specifically state he is opposed to the tunnels. Gov. Brown claims the tunnels are good for the Delta, after all. I want to hear him state his opposition clearly.
• #4 Newsom (D) Thinks One Tunnel is Needed. That’s bad if it goes through the current though-Delta construction zone and unless operational constraints are mandated which hasn’t been successful in the past. On the good side, he wants to reduce reliance on the Delta by focusing on regional solutions, investing in recycling and ground water replacement, and conservation. But one tunnel through the Delta is bad.

Republicans – both are “Opposed” but …

• #1 – John Cox (R) Opposes the tunnels but doesn’t believe in climate change so it is unclear how/if he would address the problems in the Delta. On the other hand, he is against corporate money in politics, so maybe he’d be one to push back on Stewart Resnick and his big ag cronies.
• #2 – Travis Allen (R) is opposed (that’s good) but he has a total lack of understanding about water in California. He wants to build dams so every home can have green lawns and thinks we have more than enough water to send to the “enormously productive Central Valley that has lacked water for years, and Southern California”. Dams are not today’s solution. With climate change the Sierras will be having less water, not more. We need more regional self-sufficiency through new technologies and conservation. Most of California is a desert. Green lawns need to be replaced. We don’t need more “profitable” almonds.

Green Party

• #1 Josh Jones is Opposed and has a good understanding of the issues.
• #2 Chris Carlson seems opposed but all I found as his “statement” was a silly poem. So I can’t take him seriously.

Other Races

I haven’t researched the candidates in other races, but can comment about what our current incumbents have been doing for the Delta and they have been great:

• Jerry McNerney for U.S. Congress is an extremely strong advocate for the Delta and adamantly opposed to the tunnels. He helped stop the 2-Gates project – remember? That was where we almost lost our main navigation channel up Old River when they were going to dam it and Connection Slough. Since then he has continued to speak out and work on legislation that would be good for the Delta (like his W.E.S.T. Act) and oppose legislation that would harm the Delta.
• Jim Frazier, CA Assembly District 11, is an outspoken advocate for the Delta and continues to be a thorn in the Governor’s side. Frazier formed the Delta Legislative Caucus last year and brought the State Auditor out to the people where she slammed the cost/benefits analysis (or lack thereof) for the tunnels. Frazier pushed a bill to dissolve the Delta Stewardship Council (the group of thugs who are supposed to be protecting the Delta and instead we say they have become the “Tunnel Stewardship Council”). Jim’s bill got stopped by the big oil and big ag representatives who were the majority. Frazier’s Stop the Tunnels sign on his office balcony was annoying the Governor whenever he walked by it (haha). Frazier now lives in Discovery Bay. He feels the pain right with us. He’s always given us support and resources.

Propositions

Prop 68 – I’m trying to get more information on this one. The Sierra Club backs it but I want to make sure there isn’t anything in there that could be used to support the tunnels or if that is addressed anywhere in the measure to be sure they don’t sneak and shift money around.

Although the Santa Clara Valley Water District vote to finance $650 million of the Tunnels was disappointing, Director Barbara Keegan acknowledged the concerns expressed by residents in Discovery Bay (thank you all who sent email to the board) about impacts on boating and Delta recreation. She stated that the SCVWD appointed representative would be bringing the construction impacts to the Delta Conveyance Design and Construction Joint Project Authority Board (DCDCA). “Someone has to stand up and say, ‘this is a problem.’”

That obviously didn’t happen in the first DCDCA meeting! Instead, a smiling Tony Estremera, also from SCVWD and now the new President of the DCDCA Board, seemed joyous and gleefully stated he was looking forward to the very long, long construction period.

Let the board know how incensed you were to see him laughing about the long construction phase!!! And that nothing about the construction will be nice for us!

Ask them when the SCVWD reps are going to stand up and say, “This is a problem!” ???

Everyone needs to email them again. Say that we saw Tony and Barbara at the first DCDCA Board Meeting. Yet even after all 5 Delta County Supervisors stood up and expressed concerns, the Board didn’t acknowledge the concerns or put an agenda item on for the next meeting to review the concerns.

Diane Burgis, Contra Costa County Supervisor delivered a passionate please, telling them the issues of traffic through rural areas, the value of farming and the $750 million economic hit that will occur to the county from the loss of Delta recreation. She confronted the board about the damage to the Delta and said, “You know! You know this is going to be damaging.” She went on to say that it is a unique area, home to many historical legacy towns, many natural resources. She explained that our infrastructure is mostly 2-lane levee roads that are vital to our statewide economy and for the safety and welfare of those who live in the Delta. And that it is not the right place for massive construction and columns of trucks.

Don Nottoli, Sacramento County Supervisor added that the construction project will forever change daily life to the historic community. Quiet rural towns will be transformed into construction zones. Impacts are prolonged, sometimes 7 x 24 for years and years which will undoubtedly affect quality of life, displace people, effect agribusiness, tourism, fishing, boating. He told them the project is wrongheaded, misguided.

Yet at the end of the meeting, we see and hear this (let’s see his smiling face one more time):

Tell them we demand that the board add an agenda item for the next meeting to do an honest review of the Delta Communities concerns and of the true impact this massive construction project will have on communities and boating and recreation in the Delta.

Barbara Keegan had said she enjoyed going to the Delta and expressed that area shouldn’t be lost to Santa Clara Valley boaters to enjoy. But that is exactly what they are about to do. Lose it forever as a boating mecca.

We need to keep telling them.
Email Tony Estremera, the new President of the DCDCA Board and Barbara Keeling, the alternate. Include the general board email so they all receive it. And cc your County Supervisor.

(I’d appreciate a later forward of your email or BCC, but please don’t put me on the to/cc’s they will see.)

If you are in Contra Costa County, cc Diane Burgis

At this point, I don’t think it does any good to stress how dumb the project is or that there are better alternatives. Tony even said he thinks the infrastructure is “old” so it’s time for an upgrade. They have convinced themselves this is a valid project and the environmentalists are complaining for no valid reason about little fish that this project, they have been told, will help. You can add that it is a dumb project and why at the end, but make the key point, the thing they read and understand, is the huge, huge impact on Delta communities lives with the project. And how this peaceful, scenic, boating favorite is being taken away from their Santa Clara residents to enjoy on weekends forever once the construction project is allowed to begin.

Include that there’s always been a better, more viable construction alternative, the Eastern Route, which was recommended by the State’s own Independent Scientists years ago. Construction along that route wouldn’t impact the Delta at all. It would cost $1 to $1.7 billion more, so start with one tunnel and from that cost savings build it on the Eastern Route. Win-win.

We don’t want any tunnels, but if they build it, they need to go around the Delta, not through it.

I’ll be writing additional blogs about the construction impact and we can quote them and send them to the board in phases. But start those emails going. You can cc Diane Burgis if you live in CCC or your local Supervisor if you live elsewhere.

The alignment recommended by the independent reviewers is shown below – the Eastern Alignment. It would have gone next to I-5, reducing both truck and barge traffic through the Delta as well as any risks from tunneling under the Delta levees. It was decided against because of cost considerations, because that route is ten miles longer. But we all know, the economic and human impacts from the massive through-Delta construction destruction has not been calculated as part of the tunnel cost.

We have been telling every agency in comments and in person for almost ten years that they were going down the wrong alignment or, as Supervisor Skip Thomson told the DCDCA Thursday, they were going down the wrong tunnel.

At the start of all of this, someone should have drawn lines around the Delta, the fragile estuary, the place beloved by boaters and visitors throughout California, a place of historic towns and said, “This is what we want to protect.”

If they’d done that, then there would have been no “Through Delta” alignment alternative ever considered. Clearly there is no understanding of what it is we are trying to save.

In addition, scientists have said the soils through the Delta are not good for tunneling. Tunneling through the Delta is adding lots of risk – not only for the project, cost, and schedule – but also that settling can cause levee failures. And who knows what problems they could have going under the main river channels! Here’s the details about tunneling through the Delta.

The State’s own Independent Science Board years ago recommended the Eastern Alignment. Yet they were ignored.

The State Agencies have a history of ignoring science

This entire project was supposed to start with the Delta Flow Requirements but that 2010 scientific report said they were already exporting too much water. So the Delta Stewardship Council and Department of Water Resources ignored the report and looked for ways to export even more water.

It’s like the Oroville Dam. The DWR was warned about design flaws in the dam but for cost reasons, ignored them. The DWR now has been warned about the risks of tunneling through the Delta, are ignoring those risks, and plowing ahead to save money.

It’s like the Metropolitan Water District’s worst tunneling disaster. The current tunnel path goes through the largest natural gas field in California, the Rio Vista gas fields, but not East. MWD ignored warnings of gas fields when tunneling their Castaic tunnel, had an explosion from the gas, killed 17 workers. MWD is again ignoring the warning and not taking any of the recommended steps regarding tunneling through a gas field.

Images courtesy of the California Water Research, https://cah2oresearch.com/2018/04/30/waterfix-tunnel-construction-gas-wells/

A large justification for the tunnels is fear of future earthquake causing the levees to fall down. Yet the tunnels are not being designed to withstand a seismic event. Plus going through the shifting Delta soil will make any earthquake impacts worse. Plus they are going under the major river channels.

Why are then not going East?

With the risks to going on the current path, shouldn’t they step back, perhaps start with one tunnel and with the cost savings from that go the ten-mile longer but safer and less destructive route?

Wouldn’t that be a win-win?