Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA)

UPDATED 4/16 10:52 AM: A new article says Villaraigosa is opposed to the tunnels even though he’s supportive of the Central Valley famers: Villaraigosa is spending time in farm country. Let’s hope he doesn’t get his mind changed.

In other words:
#1 Strongly opposed: The two Republican candidates and Democrats Delaine Eastin and John Villaraigosa.

#2 Open to debate and other alternatives: Chiang (D)

#3 Thinks one tunnel is OK and needed (that’s bad) but wants to reduce reliance on the Delta (that is good): Newsom (D)

ORIGINAL POST:

Republican Candidates: The two Republican candidates — John Cox and Travis Allen — are solidly opposed to the tunnels.

Democratic Candidates prioritized by their tunnel position:

#1 ** Delaine Eastin, adamantly against. She had the best answer of the Democratic candidates; she gets it: ”Jerry is stubborn about certain things. He wanted the Peripheral Canal. The tunnels are the Peripheral Canal with a lid on it. The state isn’t doing water planning,” she adds. “We’re just doing expensive things like tunnels — an old idea.”

#2 Antonio Villaraigosa, prior mayor of L.A. is aware of the division of the topic, and recently came out as opposed: “Before we divide this state around the proposal for new twin tunnels, let’s understand all of our options.”

#3 John Chiang, state Treasurer wants to continue the debate: “Despite new financing by the Metropolitan Water District, we must first ensure that we are doing everything possible to protect our ecosystems, our water supply and our economy. … That’s why I believe it’s important to continue this debate.” It also sounded like Chiang thinks the tunnels should be voted on. My concern with that is that with all of the marketing the Brown Administration has done, scaring people about sudden loss of their water supply due to an earthquake (not valid, just a scare tactic), and the number of people who still aren’t aware of the real issues with the tunnels, I’m not sure voters have the right information to make an informed decision.

#4 Gavin Newsom is for one tunnel and has bought into the “Something has to be done to fix the plumbing in the Delta” story line! He said, “One tunnel might be OK. The status quo is unacceptable. But that can’t be our only approach. I strongly believe California must work to reduce our dependence on the delta by focusing on regional solutions, investing in critical water infrastructure like recycling and ground water replacement, and conservation.” Maybe he isn’t a lost cause, but I sure don’t like his opening remarks. Keep sending him your Delta photos and stories!

LA Times Article: “When it comes to the California delta, none of Gov. Jerry Brown’s potential successors have tunnel vision” (the title is misleading, since Newsom may).

Whatever your politics, there’s a good chance Gavin Newsom will be our next governor (he’s ahead in the race). Earlier on in the race he said he was against the tunnels. But most recently, he said something wishy washy – probably to get the Central Valley and Southern California votes and to have Jerry Brown endorsing and pushing his candidacy. Or maybe he, like Jerry Brown, is getting campaign financing from the big Corporate almond farmers like Stewart Resnick and big L.A. Developers who want the fresh Sacramento water. If that’s the case, he, like Jerry Brown and Feinstein, will be beholding to them and supporting of the tunnel boondoggle.

BUT THERE IS AN OPENING RIGHT NOW TO CONVINCE HIM OTHERWISE!!! He’s opened up the door with his email below where he wants to find out what each of us love about CA. Gavin asks:

“What it is about your part of CA that makes it a special place for you. I’m aiming to drop by as many parts of the state as I can before Election Day, but whether I catch you on a visit or not, I’d love to hear from you: Can you show me what your favorite place in California is, captured in one great photo?”

We need to FLOOD his inbox flooded with one photo from each of you featuring the Delta.

• Beautiful shots of Discovery Bay water and let him know your fears for your home values and community because the Delta Tunnels will destroy our water quality. Lots of people should send those in. Let him know how panicked our community is about the tunnels!
• Photos of water skiers and wake boarders, specifically on Twin Sloughs and let him know the nearby/favorite slough will be blocked by the tunnel construction
• Photos of anchor outs at Mildred and let him know our only anchorage in the South Delta will be ruined for 11 years during the construction
• Photos of a Small Boat Dinner Cruise to Union Point and let him know that establishment will be cut off from boats and likely go out of business
• Photos of groups enjoying ski beach which will be cut off from use by construction
• Photos of Bullfrog Marina and let him know that marina will be surrounded by barges and construction and likely go out of business
• Photos of boats underway on Middle River and let him know those waterways will all be blocked with barges and construction
• Photos of quaint legacy communities in the North that will be ruined first by the construction of the giant pumping plant and later by the awful view of the plant
• Photos of fishermen on the Delta and let him know how the tunnels will be the end of many species here
• Photos of the birds of the Delta: majestic blue heron, egrets, and others and your fear that a noisy, polluting, 11-year construction project through the heart of the Delta will take an unrecoverable toll on the waterfowl
• Photos of any other scenic part of the Delta that you love and tell him your fear that this wonderful place is about to be destroyed
• Photos of your farm in Brentwood or on a Delta Island and tell him the tunnel operation plan includes increased salinity which will sterilize your fertile farmland

We should all add that the tunnel route through the heart of the Delta was a terrible, terrible idea and we’ve been loudly complaining that they picked the wrong route which will destroy the Delta by construction even before the operation of the tunnels ruin Delta water quality.

If you have a boat, tell him to come out and take a boat ride to find out what the Delta is and how it will be destroyed by this project.

Email
Subject: RE: be featured on my Instagram!
To: gavin@gavinnewsom.com – BUT DON’T CC ME ON YOUR EMAIL or it will look coordinated. But if you would, please either BCC stcda@NoDeltaGates.com so I know how many we send.

Or let me know in a separate email to stcda@NoDeltaGates.com what your photo was of and if we miss some important spots, I’ll work to get those covered.

If you aren’t a photographer, maybe ask Bill Klipp or others on FaceBook you see post pictures and see if you can borrow one 🙂

Together we can make a difference!

Before everyone panics about the Metropolitan Water District’s vote this week to pay for the Delta Tunnels, it’s not over yet. The article in the SacBee today is right with it’s lead-in: “California Delta Tunnels Project Still Faces Obstacles.” I agree. Big obstacles.

On the other hand, even though this article says that the biggest barrier is the hearings underway now by the State Water Resources Control Board, we know that since it’s members were all appointed by Gov. Jerry Brown, getting a permit in June at this point is likely. Not only has Brown stacked the deck with his pro-tunnel appointees, the meets have been rigged. The Water Board Hearing officers have been colluding with the State’s DWR who are requesting the permits. And we have proof that the modeling they used to show how much water they can extract has been manipulated. AND the design for the tunnels is not earthquake-proof, even though their cost justification is heavily based on the assumption that the current levee system is not earthquake proof and that is a huge risk. Hmm.

But the big obstacle is that once the permits are issued, then the law suits will begin.

The article says: ” At least 58 tunnels opponents, including Sacramento-area governments, fishing groups and a Native American tribe, are suing under California’s environmental protection law. Many of those same opponents filed lawsuits challenging the plan’s financial arrangements. And in late February, many of these groups filed a fresh lawsuit saying the water board broke state law by secretly meeting with state and federal officials about the project.”

And you remember who it was that found out about those secret meetings, about the rigged hearings? That’s right. Save the California Delta Alliance’s own legal council, Michael Brodsky. We’ve already won one case against the Delta Plan that the Judge agreed with Brodsky, ruling the plan needs to show how they will be reducing reliance on the Delta, how they will meet the Delta Flow Requirements, and what alternatives they have considered. Since the tunnels are opposite to all of those rulings, we are confident that the Judge will agree with us again, especially since these hearings have been rigged!

Thank you to everyone who has been getting on-line and donating to us (click “Donate” button on the right.) Our lawyer is the best of the best and if we continue to support him in hiring expert witnesses to build his case, we can succeed.

Here’s the article: Sacramento Bee Article: California Delta Tunnels Project Still Faces Obstacles.

Metropolitan Water District backs two Delta Tunnels.

The vote was disappointing but not unexpected. Disappointing, since at each juncture we keep hoping we’ve seen the final nail in the coffin. But the tunnel project never seems to die. Not unanticipated because their fall-back of voting for just one tunnel would have meant the Water Board permit process would have been extended to Part III and a new EIR for one tunnel at a time; hence it would not be done during Gov. Brown’s reign. Not funding both tunnels up-front was equivalent to Gov. Brown giving up, and we know he wasn’t about to do that.

We know the tunnels are not cost effective and are not guaranteed to produce another drop of water, assuming the tunnels will be operated responsibly. Obviously it means the water exporters have no commitment to responsible operations. Thus the law suit wars will need to begin as soon as the Water Board issues the permits by June. We know that process is rigged, so we know the permits will be approved. Save the California Delta Alliance is gearing up to begin that battle.

This makes it vital for us to make an early push for fund raising, to be sure we are ready to take on the battle.

Or send a check made out to “STCDA” to:
STCDA
P.O. Box 1760
Discovery Bay, CA 94505

We appreciate everyone that has been supporting us!

In a memo dated March 30, 2018, Scott Pruitt directed EPA regional offices to “cede their Clean Water Act determinations” to him. According to this report, “The move appears to change the approval process to lessen the role of EPA employees and scientists when it comes to evaluating whether a project has a significant negative environmental impact on waterways or wetlands.”

Currently, the State Water Board is holding Hearings on whether to issue a permit for the Delta Tunnels. If that permit is approved, and has seemed more likely since STCDA found out that the Water Board has been colluding with the DWR and altering Delta Flow requirements in favor of the Tunnels, the next and final steps are (1) Army Corps of Engineers Permit and (2) final approval from the EPA.

If you recall, it was the EPA that blasted the 2014 Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), saying it was not a Habitat Conservation Plan and would more likely kill fish than save them. That stopped the project in its tracks . . . for a while. Then Jerry Brown got the bright idea and basically said, “OK, our tunnels won’t save the Delta, let’s just build the tunnels.” and split the BDCP into two projects:

• California WaterFix (aka the Delta Tunnels)
• California EcoRestore (the part to save the Delta).

Has anyone heard “boo” about EcoRestore the past 4 years? No? That’s because the only focus has been on WaterFix, the Tunnels . . . on killing the Delta, not saving it.

At least, in the past, we had the EPA on our side. It was the EPA that also shut down the Two-Gates Fish Protection Project in 2010. Remember that? The plan to put dams in Old River and Connection Slough and virtually shut down boating in the South Delta.

So now the concern is, will the EPA once again let the scientists and experts chime in? Or will Pruitt ignore science, facts, and let the Exporters build their destructive tunnels?

Scott Pruitt took over the Clean Water Act

People were getting happily excited when they read the news that “Water agency won’t finance Brown’s $17B tunnels” reported in the E&E News. The reporter misstated when he said, “Southern California’s largest water provider yesterday unexpectedly backed away from a plan to fund Gov. Jerry Brown’s $17 billion effort to replumb the state’s water system.”

The LA Times title was a little misleading but more accurate when it said, “Metropolitan Water District backs away from plan to finance both delta tunnels.” Note: That’s “both” delta tunnels. MWD was always planning a certain amount of funding. When the Ag water districts backed out of funding anything, MWD was going to vote whether to fund both tunnels now or just one. They reverted to their original offer to fund the amount that will give one tunnel now. The second is not totally off-the-table – it could be built later if/when funding becomes available or if/when they can sell the water from the first tunnel to agribusinesses, frackers, or any others and make a profit. MET said, “More important is that we just get going…. We’re talking one tunnel for now.”

This is the worst possible scenario. If they build one, they plan to take more water than they get now and they could sell any excess and raise money for the second tunnel. A phased approach means 17-20 years of construction through the heart of the Delta, instead of 11-13. One tunnel gives them less operational flexibility and the fear is they would pump during dry periods, doubling the water quality problem in the South Delta at those times while still causing negative environmental impact throughout the Delta.

I just found out that AmazonSmile has a triple donation promotion on now – ends on March 31! So one week only! Amazon is tripling the donation amount to 1.5% when customers make their first eligible smile.amazon.com purchase from now through March 31.

3x your impact! Amazon is tripling the donation rate on your first smile.amazon.com purchase – through March 31! Go to smile.amazon.com/ch/27-1326502 and Amazon donates to Save the California Delta Alliance.

Because I attended a meeting in Bethel Island in January, they asked me to send in comments on the Draft Franks Tract Feasibility Project Proposal. Sorry to say, I wasn’t really that supportive. The draft wasn’t that much different from the original proposal. There were a series of meetings with Bethel Island and other Stakeholders. That information was dutifully captured in this new draft. But it didn’t change the proposal. Similar to the BDCP/WaterFix, they meet, they say they “listen,” and move on with their original concept.

Here are the comments I submitted.

I commented is that there must be better places to put this smelt habitat area and not destroy the primary Northern California bass fishing area (a State Recreational Area) and also destroy the community of Bethel Island. The first site that comes to mind is Webb Tract. It’s just north of Franks, actually better flow-wise so smelt would migrate north, and it’s already owned by Metropolitan Water District (the entity that is funding the report) so they can easily do with Webb Tract what they want.

In my comments about the plan, one of my concerns is that they never quantify the economic loss to Northern California from killing the bass fishing industry.

Another problem to me is that nowhere in the document do I see any reference to the homes and marinas that now look out on the portion of Franks Tract that is planned as a “tidal marsh” where the view is considered of value and probably part of the home value/worth. Yet this is where they plan to pile mud and make it a mud pond. They don’t talk about the vegetation they would plant, what it would look like, the new view. They don’t talk about the smell from tunnel muck or mosquito abatement. Very worrisome.

But bottom line, this sums it up for me. Their report says on page 29: “Most 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. Alternative configurations are possible that will have less impact on local communities and economies.“

My comment was, “Re-read that part please. ‘Strongly objected to the location and configuration.’ To me, that should drive the conclusion, but the conclusion is full-speed ahead on the current location and configuration.”

That’s the problem. They gather information, but the conclusions, the plan doesn’t change. Just like the tunnels.

The report also said: “Meetings and conversations about this proposed restoration approach have begun to build trust and more open communication between state agencies involved in restoration efforts and the general public.”

That’s the problem we’ve been having with all of these state agency projects. They may have meetings. We present our comments. The BDCP even held “In-Delta Meetings” in the Brentwood Library where young admins took down our concerns and left, not really understanding our concerns or properly documenting them. They leave and nothing changes.

What these agencies don’t understand is that conversations are two-way streets. We don’t want to just talk and then next reiteration of the project has no significant changes. This draft does capture our concerns, in words. But nothing changes. Our concerns don’t change the recommendations or the conclusion.

That isn’t “listening.” That is simply understanding the objections but then, regardless, moving ahead.

The Press’ new article: Franks Tract restoration project under fire (Delta smelt at center of state’s plan).

“The Division of Fish and Wildlife’s plan to ‘restore’ Franks Tract is another assault on the Delta and its people by the Natural Resources Agency,” said Bill Wells, executive director of the California Delta Chambers & Visitor’s Bureau. “John Laird, Charleton H. Bonham and Carl Wilcox should all be held personally responsible for any damage to the economy and the ecosystem in and around Franks Tract. Since the island flooded in 1937 it has been a paradise for wildlife and sportsmen. It is on the Pacific Flyway and visited by thousands of waterfowl each year. It is also prime habitat for many species of fish.”

Jim Frazier strongly objects to this project: ““As co-chair of the Delta Caucus, I see this effort by the administration to establish a ‘habitat’ project is clearly a cover for the irresponsible tunnels proposal and will worsen the reckless overpumping of the Delta,” said California 11th District Assemblymember Jim Frazier, a vocal opponent of WaterFix, in an email to The Press. “Franks Tract is a state park and a primary way into and out of the Delta. Over the decades, it has become a paradise for anglers and recreationalists. This project will wreak havoc on our marinas, boaters and fishermen in the Delta District and severely impact our culture. This reckless plan again puts the big money interests in the south over the people of the Delta.”

Read all about it.

Jan’s comments:

From the article, California Department of Fish & Wildlife’s Carl Wilcox “stated, however, that both Franks Tract and Little Franks Tract are choked with non-native vegetation and invasive species like black bass are predators of the native Delta smelt and juvenile salmon.”

That’s so misleading and going down the wrong path.

1. While true that Franks Tract may now have weeds, a lot of the Delta is nowadays. Why? Because of the over-exporting, ruining water quality throughout the Delta and making conditions ripe for invasive species like hyacinth, ragweed, egeria dense and worse, toxic blue-green algae. More fresh water flowing through the Delta is one way to start to improve water quality and flush out the invasive species. But that is no reason to ruin Franks Tract. It is still a popular bass fishing site and a State Recreational Area. This project wouldn’t “save” Franks Tract or do anything to fight the invasive weeds. The Bethel Island folks requested aid dredging a path across Franks Tract to aid boaters in accessing key marinas and businesses on Bethel Island. That’s what would help – not filling the tract up with tunnel muck.
2. Wilcox groups black bass with “invasive species.” That’s not valid. The attack on the popular bass species started some years ago when the bass fishermen became influential in the fight against the Delta Tunnels. A tunnel proponent was overheard to say, “Wait until [those fishermen] find out what we plan to do to their bass.” After that, there have been multiple State Bills to cause the extinction of the black bass. Do they have any justification? Scientific studies show that as the salmon species improve (when exports were less), the bass also thrived. When the pumps were cranked up to over 5 MAF, both the salmon species and the bass together struggled. Bass are not predators to be removed. There are studies that show them as predators in certain locations, like where smelt or salmon are entrapped behind dams or other barriers. But when the rivers are flowing freely – no problem. So once again, the “fix” is to get rid of dams (like the Head of Old River Dam that is periodically installed near Lathrop to try to keep salmon flowing away from the pumps. At that spot, salmon are entrapped and eaten by bass. But in general, no.
3. Let’s think about what this will do to Bethel Island. In addition to blocking access off for the major marinas and businesses, what about the homes that now look out at the scenic waters of Franks Tract, the State Recreational Area. They will be looking out at a sea of tunnel muck. Ilk! Smelly, toxic, likely to be a mosquito-friendly area. There are some really lovely homes along that stretch.

No – this is not a project that will do anything to help the communities of the Delta, only the influential water exporters.

FAKE NEWS !!!!!

Don’t believe everything you read. Although the State Agencies are spending their marketing money trying to spin information to make you believe in the Delta Tunnels. Desperate Times call for desperate measures, I guess.

If you’ve received this in your email box from the WaterFix, know it is 100 percent bogus. News this fake should be illegal.

THE DATA BELOW IS FAKE AND WRONG:

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

The actual PPIC survey, quoted, says:

With disappointing rainfall and snow pack totals this winter and talk of another possible drought, 53 percent of likely voters say that the supply of water is a big problem in their part of the state. Asked about the governor’s proposal to build tunnels in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta—starting with one tunnel and later adding a second—42 percent of likely voters say this is very important for the future quality of life and economic vitality of California.

Californians will vote in June on Proposition 68 to fund water infrastructure projects. Asked if they would vote for such a bond measure, two-thirds of likely voters (66%) say they would vote yes. An overwhelming majority of Democrats (78%) and a strong majority of independents (66%) say they would vote yes, compared to about half of Republicans (51%).

Somehow, the WaterFix people took “78 percent of Democrats want improved water infrastructure” PLUS only “42 percent say this [WaterFix] is very important” and ended up with “78 want WaterFix.” Maybe it’s new math?

BUT WAIT, Prop 68 isn’t even all about “improved water infrastructure.” The title of Prop 68 is: “Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018.”

So:
78 percent of Democrats want Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All

+ PLUS 42 percent say WaterFix is important

= 78 Percent of Californians want WaterFix

New math?