Archive Page 35
| With more media attention turning against the BDCP, the BDCP spin doctors are trying to convince us that their purposes are nobel. On December 12th the BDCP came out with a new blog called “Correcting Stubborn Myths” by Karla Nemeth. Once again, they have issued a piece crafted by their marketing writers in LA designed to confuse the real issues and continue to spread their Newspeak. What they call “Myths” are Facts. |  |
Here is our rebuttal to their rebuttal.
They say it’s Myth 1: No one knows how much water will be exported under the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
The facts: That’s not a myth, it’s true. The tunnels are large enough to export all of the fresh water from the Sacramento River. The water contractors “say” they won’t export that amount. When the Central Valley Project (CVP) export pumps were installed in the late 60’s when Pat Brown was governor, the water contractors “said” that they wouldn’t ramp up exports to a level that would cause environment damage. Yet they did.
There is nothing in the BDCP plan that truly limits the amount of water to be exported.
They say it’s Myth 2: This is a water grab for Southern California and San Joaquin Valley farmers.
The facts: Yes, this is a water grab by powerful corporate agribusiness interests on the westside of the Central Valley and powerful LA developers. California is the world’s leading producer of almonds and pistachios. The increase in almond exports are destroying the economies and the environment in Northern California. Almonds are a growing market worldwide, especially in Asia. California cannot afford to continue to ship unlimited amounts of water to desert farmlands in order to send nuts to the growing Asian markets for Corporate profit.
They say it’s Myth 3: The BDCP will destroy the Delta’s environment.
The facts: That is not a myth, it is a fact. It’s simple. The current level of exporting has removed too much fresh water from the Delta according to the government agency reports. The new plan, to now remove water even before it can flow through the Delta, obviously will not improve the situation.
The Bay Institute/State Water Resources Control Board “Delta Flows” report in August 2010 recommended that the “fix” for the reverse flows in the Delta causing harm to fish is to reduce exports during dry periods. Instead the tunnels will reduce the flow through the Delta to a trickle – not enough for salmon to survive.
They say it’s Myth 4: No one knows how much it will cost or who will pay for the BDCP.
The facts: It will cost much more than the current estimate. The stated “cost” has already gone up. They can’t claim to know how much it will end up costing the state in the long-run. This project is only ten percent designed. Plus big infrastructure projects in this state are known to end up costing significantly more than the initial estimate.
We know who will pay for it – the taxpayers. Currently the water contractors have not committed to paying their share. In fact, Westlands has not yet paid their costs for the Central Valley Project (CVP). Even if the water contractors were to step up and pay their share as proposed by the plan, taxpayers will also bear a proportion of the costs (even though the plan does nothing for urban users). Plus the big habitat and other environmental projects the BDCP “claims” will help the environment will only come to fruition if voted on as bonds – coming ahead of schools.
Bottom line: The costs will be huge, urban users will be paying to subsidize big corporate agribusiness profits and schools will suffer in order to fix the damage the water contractors have caused by years of over-exporting.
They say it’s Myth 5: There is no cost-benefit analysis and no evaluation of alternative options. They then list a long list of various reports and papers.
The facts: Their cost-benefit analyses are riddled with holes and inconsistencies. They under estimate the economic impacts on Delta farmers, commercial fishing interests, recreational Delta interests. They base their “cost benefits” on items that are actually negatives or, like the phony earthquake bogey, that are not real.
They say it’s Myth 6: No one knows how the BDCP operations will be governed.
The fact: The BDCP will operate using a new “adaptive management” approach to water operations. Will it work? No – because no matter what harm the tunnels might cause, it will be virtually impossible to curtail water exports once the tunnels start operation. Because the main backers of the tunnels, the water contractors who will receive water deliveries from the tunnel and sell the water to their urban and agricultural customers, have seats on key committees and can veto decisions they don’t like escalating the decision all the way to the Governor or the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. That can take years. Meanwhile the fish die.
They say it’s Myth 7: There is no clear science being used for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan.
The facts: The clear science is that the current level of Delta Flow is too low and is impacting fish survival and Delta farming. To-date their habitat restoration projects have not proven to be effective. The key agencies including the Fish & Game have not signed off that the BDCP will help the salmon. California needs a plan that can guarantee improvement in the salmon runs and better water quality flowing through the Delta for in-Delta use.
They say it’s Myth 8: The BDCP process has not been transparent or open to the public.
The facts: This is not a myth. The BDCP has been planned in closed sessions, excluding Northern California legislatures. That is not the definition of transparent. Is it true that the public has been informed of these plans? Yes. Is it true that public input has been incorporated into the planning process? No – not in any significant or meaningful way.
If you want to read the BDCP Spin, here’s the BDCP’s version of “Correcting Stubborn Myths”.
Media about the BDCP Release
Published December 12, 2013 News and Events , STCDA News , Tunnel(s) Leave a Comment
Sacramento Bee Cartoon – December 12, 2013
From the Redding Record Editorial Tuesday Dec 10:
“The documents — the plan itself and its draft environmental impact report — released this week for public review and comment weigh in at some 33,000 pages. That’s not a doorstop, it’s a barricade. For comparison, the last print edition of the venerable Encyclopedia Britannica — all 32 volumes of it — totaled almost exactly the same size at 32,640 pages.”
“But the staggering complexity of the plan, along with its $25 billion cost, reflects either a 21st-century marvel of engineering and organization — or an act of extraordinary hubris doomed to collapse under its own weight.”
The Sacramento Bee Editorial today points to three huge flaws with the BDCP Plan:
(1) Who will finance it? The basic financial framework, for example, remains unresolved.
(2) What would be the role be of the Delta counties?
(3) How much water needs to flow through the Delta. The report also fails to define what future water flows would be through the Delta.
The SacBee Editorial concludes: “It is time to consider alternatives seriously, something the 34,000-page draft study just doesn’t do.” Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/12/12/5993202/editorials-two-tunnel-study-leaves.html#storylink=cpy
Assembly members Jim Frazier and Mariko Yamada joined the Restore The Delta protest on the steps of the Sacramento capital building to voice strong displeasure with the BDCP and process to-date. The sentiment was echoed by Sacramento Assemblyman Roger Dickinson in the guest article “Viewpoints: When it comes to re-plumbing the Delta; trust is a two-way street”. It’s great to see how vocal the Northern California legislators are becoming in opposition to the plan. For years they’ve tried to compromise and stay at the bargaining table. It appears they recognize that has failed and are now on attack mode.
The only pro-BDCP media I’m reading this week is from the Farm Water Coalition, Fresno Bee editorial by a farmer there, and other stakeholders who want the water. Or some writers that “buy” what the BDCP is selling.
 |
When the pre-draft version of the BDCP came out last spring, one area that caused quite a stir was the exposure that the plan was going to extract tons of tunnel “muck” (their term, not mine) that was mud combined with foaming agents, plastics, and other “stuff” used in the drilling process. This muck had to be stored in hugh muck ponds for drying. Muck is smelly, nasty stuff it was so bad that to ensure that underlying groundwater is not contaminated, these muck ponds be lined with an impervious liner to make sure it didn’t seep into the ground water. |
One farmer discovered his farm and beautiful Victorian home was planned to be under a muck pond. Discovery Bay citizens were dismayed to see a stinky muck pond within a mile of their community. Boaters were unhappy to see a muck pond just west of the primary South Delta anchorage, Mildred Island. People drove to Stockton to attend the BDCP meetings and complained loudly.
A few months ago, the BDCP posted a nice glossy flyer about all of the neat things you could do with tunnel muck. They heard the ruckus about muck and renamed it, “reusable tunnel material” or RTM. They brochure claimed it was great to build habitat, build up farm lands that had settled, good for levee walls. A wonder material. Wow. All is well. I expected the next release of the BDCP Plan to describe how they would be removing or reusing the material.
The new final “Draft” BDCP Plan was released Monday December 9th so I grabbed chapter 4 to read how they were going to transport the muck, er I mean reusable tunnel material, out of the Delta or put it to good use.
Surprise, surprise. Chapter 4 is EXACTLY the same wording as the prior version EXCEPT the word “muck” is replaced by “RTM”.
What’s that called again? Oh yes, putting lipstick on a pig. Or in this case, a muck pond.
Isn’t that the same maneuver as calling the Peripheral Canals “smaller underground tunnels”? It does sound better even though their capacity is still 15,000 CFS with the addition of a couple of pumps (the entire Sacramento River), going “under” causes huge construction damage through the heart of the Delta, and the end result is the same: water the Delta needs to remain healthy will bypass the Delta to support big, powerful agribusiness farmers making huge profits sending almonds to Asia.
The “In Delta” meetings appear to have been just a scam so that the tunnel proponents could claim they are listening to the Delta citizens. “People Showed Up for the In-Delta Meeting”
Did we get answers? No!
It’s been over 3 months since the meetings so I did a survey of our members asking the question: “If you attended one of the In-Delta meetings August/September (e.g., at the Brentwood Library), can you let me know if you did, what meeting, and if you have received any responses back to your questions/comments.”
Guess what! The result was UNANIMOUS. No one received answers, not one! Surprise, surprise.
A couple of people received email directing them to a BDCP site titled “Your Questions Answered.” That page now has a short list of sixteen questions and answers, none addressing any of the concerns and comments I heard while there. And only sixteen! The page says “Each week we will compile common questions and issues and address them below.” The first In-Delta meeting was August 22. That was 15 weeks ago. So with all of their staffers, they can only address one question a week? Maybe they’ll have more time now that their 30,000 page EIR is being released tomorrow.
Obviously, the questions they “answer” are questions the DWR wants to reply to with their “Newspeak” answers.
Are these Our questions?
One of the latest questions added is “How will the BDCP protect water supplies in the event of an earthquake or levee failure?” That is OBVIOUSLY a trumped up question. First, how to protect the supplies of water being shipped away from us is definitely NOT one of the the top-of-mind concerns from the In-Delta community. Second, no one who lives in the Delta is worried about the bogey earthquake risk made up by the water contractors.
I could be wrong – please let me know if that was one of your questions/concerns.
The entire list of questions we supposedly asked is below. If you asked any of those, go to the BDCP Your Questions Answered website and click the question to see if the answer is a real answer or just another example of Newspeak. Because to me, this page is yet another brainwashing tactic by the state.
- Will the BDCP affect upstream reservoirs or cause “dead pool” conditions?
- Can the BDCP Drain the Sacramento River?
- Would BDCP Divert More Water from the Delta?
- Is a Biological Opinion required prior to the release of the Draft BDCP? – NEW!
- How has the BDCP ensured transparency in its planning?
- How will the BDCP protect water supplies in the event of an earthquake or levee failure? – NEW
- How will the BDCP address the Delta’s resiliency and adaptability to the effects of climate change?
- How would BDCP construction affect sandhill cranes in the Delta?
- Would the BDCP Benefit All 57 Species It Would Cover?
- What is the California Water Action Plan, and how does the BDCP fit into it?
- Why can’t the BDCP be replaced by desalination?
- Will the federal government shutdown impact the BDCP?
- Will the BDCP impact private wells in the Delta?
- Will the BDCP impact groundwater levels in the Delta?
- Will water pumped from the Delta be used for fracking in the Central Valley?
- How Can a New Water Diversion Help the Delta?
Do you “Buy” their Answers?
Every write-up on that page is just more Newspeak.
If you read their answer about Sandhill Cranes, notice that while in the first sentence the refer to both the Greater Sandhill Crane and the Lesser Sandhill Crane (both are endangered), throughout the rest of the write-up they narrowly focus on how they hope to protect only the Greater Sandhill Crane. The Lesser Sandhill Crane is also inexplicably missing from their list of “57 Covered Species” along with the Great Blue Heron, Snowy Egret and others. Do they know that those are at risk from their construction project or from deteriorating water quality so are avoiding including them in the EIR? I don’t know. I’ve asked, but gotten no direct answer. It makes you wonder.
Meanwhile the BDCP Media Carnival Continues
While the Delta Community got bogus “In-Delta” meetings, meanwhile John Laird, Jerry Meral and others continue to attend various Central Valley farm meetings and speak at other venues to sell the tunnel plan with resulting press coverage. We’ve seen busloads of LA reporters touring the Delta. We’ve seen the media blitz below and expenses being paid for (probably by the taxpayers) to convince the urban communities that they need these tunnels.
Only the Free Press can Counteract the BDCP Marketing Campaign
Hopefully more mainstream Press reports will expose the facts like Linda Yee’s Channel 5 Delta 2-Part special and recent SJ Mercury News editorial that says that the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) (aka Delta Tunnels) is the wrong solution for California’s water woes and recommends the readers “follow the money.”
They seem to have plenty of money for media blitzing:
.
| In every “pro-tunnel” newspaper article I’ve been reading lately, many of the now familiar false statements are quoted and re-quoted. I’ve heard them so often, it’s starting to sound like Newspeak from Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four“.
The purpose of Newspeak was, of course, to control thought – especially any thoughts against the state. |
 |
What Newspeak do we hear from the BDCP proponents? As you read press articles with quotes from the governor or his representatives, Department of Water Resources (DWR), water contractors or their mouth-pieces (e.g., the California Farm Water Coalition), count how many of these statements you hear. You can also see them on the BDCP Website.
- Newspeak 1: “No new water would be taken from the Delta should the tunnels be constructed”.
Actual: Fresh water will bypass the Delta estuary before it can flow through to be used for fish, farms, communities and recreation; leaving salty polluted water instead.This Newspeak was heard most recently from John Laird just last week at a meeting in Yuba City.
Why is it Newspeak? If you build massive tunnels above the Delta to divert water around the Delta, that’s “taking water from the Delta”.
- Newspeak 2: The tunnels will result in similar level of water deliveries as currently ‘permitted’.
Actual: They plan to export more water than they can now. And the current level of exports is killing the estuary.First, when they say a “similar level of water deliveries as currently permitted.”, how do you pronounce “permitted”? Is it “per-mit‘-ted” meaning that they will be controlled by environmental and other laws to the amount they are allowed to take? Or “per‘-mit-ted” meaning the amount their permits or contracts allow. Because the latter means they can take all of the water in the Sacramento because their paper water contracts are for more water than exists. See Paper Water.
- Newspeak 3: “Water is literally going down the drain.”
Actual: Water flowing through the estuary gives life to salmon and birds, irrigation for Delta farmers, drinking water for Delta communities, clean fresh water for recreational enjoyment and continues on to keep the San Francisco Bay fresh and healthy.Water flowing through the Delta is NOT going “down the drain. This Newspeak was most recently found in Yuba City congressional candidate Dan Logue’s campaign pamphlet as “The Problem.” We’ve heard it from Jason Peltier, the Westlands Water representative, at BDCP Meetings. There seems to be an odd view that water should not flow through the estuary. Should we turn all of nature into concrete pipes? Is that the only way to not be wasteful?
- Newspeak 4: “The BDCP is needed to supply water to 40 million urban users.”
Actual: The BDCP creates no new water for urban users. But the urban users will pay for it.During all of 2013, the two LA reservoirs, Pyramid and Castaic were at over 100 percent of average and about 90 percent capacity. No risk there. In addition, while San Luis (used by Silicon Valley urban users) fell so low that algae formed, the Kern Water Bank was at 88 percent with plenty of water to supply the Silicon Valley users who have priority water rights. Of course, throughout the state, (a) increased conservation and (b) local water sources (recycling, desalination) are highly recommended and needed long-term. The BDCP does nothing for the urban users.
- Newspeak 5: The tunnels can’t drain the Sacramento River.
Actual: The tunnels DO have the capacity to drain the Sacramento. And between the expansion possible for farming in the desert plus fracking needs, the Central Valley special interests’ need is unbounded.From the BDCP “Questions and Answers” website: “Operation of the BDCP water delivery system could not drain the Delta rivers and channels dry. The BDCP only would be permitted to operate with regulatory protections, including river water levels and flow, which would be determined based upon how much water is actually available in the system, the presence of threatened fish species, and water quality standards.
However, that is true today and we are continually finding out that the operations aren’t protecting the fish species (see recent “Feds may have harmed Salmon River Salmon” article (again). It took a court battle this summer to have water released from the Trinity to protect salmon, and then it was only a portion of the recommended amount. The State Water Resources Control Board is continually pressured to reduce their standards for salinity and flow in the South Delta, impacting farmers and the state keeps managing reservoir flow to aid the Central Valley farmers, not the Northern communities, the Delta farmers nor the environment.
If the tunnels have the capacity to drain the Sacramento River (which two 40-foot tunnels have), the risk is huge that eventually they will drain the river.
- Newspeak 6: The BDCP is needed to protect the state’s water supply from risk of earthquakes and the aging levee system.
Actual: There is no real risk of earthquakes in the Delta and no valid concern about massive levees failures.
The “earthquake bogey” is a made-up concern. See the facts in Dr. Pyke’s comment letter. He also reports that the levees are in good shape.The real earthquake risk to the state’s water supply is in the South: The risks to the Aqueduct (which crosses the San Andreas fault), the San Luis Reservoir (which has fissures), and the Central Valley’s Success Lake Reservoir (which is currently only 10% full due to seismic concerns). Besides earthquakes in the Central Valley, other significant risks are from sinkholes showing up due to groundwater depletion in the Central Valley.
- Newspeak 7: The BDCP will benefit 57 species.
Actual: It will NOT benefit 57 species and furthermore, there are many species it ignores.This Newspeak really irks me. - First, the misnomer of calling a Tunnel Plan a “Conservation Plan”.
- Second, the claim that there is anything in the BDCP that can help the Delta species when the freshwater is removed and taken around the Delta instead of flowing through it. All of the “habitat projects” listed in the plan are speculative, unproven, and based on faulty science.
- Third the fact that some of our favorite threatened species are left out: The great blue heron, snowy white egret, lesser sandhill crane. Even the fate of our local ducks and geese are not protected by the plan.
The primary purpose of the BDCP and Delta Tunnels is to supply more water for continued expansion of almond acreage in the Central Valley to send to Asia, for water-thirsty cotton, fracking and for big L.A. developers to expand housing developments in the LA desert. I.e., for profits, profits, profits.
Everything else is Newspeak.
This is a great letter comment letter written by Dr. Pyke to the State Water Resources Control Board criticizing the recent California Water Action Plan specifically regarding the risk of earthquakes in the Delta and the status of the Delta levee system.
Because of course, there is no big risk of an earthquake taking the levees down and the Delta levees are not all ready to fall down, like Westlands Water District, Metropolitan Water District and others wanting the tunnels would like you to believe.
If you want to have the ammunition to counter people who say the tunnels are needed to protect the exports from earthquakes, i.e., the “earthquake bogey”, hear it from the expert. He even calls out the paragraph in the plan that states the risk as “gobbledegook”. A great read and very informative!
We ran across this in the news today which shows just how slanted the proponents of the tunnel’s reasoning can be. The California Farm Water Coalition (CFWC) posted this “response”: (For the original, see http://www.cfwc.com/Current-News/).
“Coalition response…While Ken Vogel would like you to believe that California is suffering under an oversubscribed water supply it is important to note that South of Delta CVP water users received 100 percent of their supplies from 1952 to 1989, with the exception of 1977, a severe drought year. Today those supplies have been decimated, not because of an oversubscribed water supply but because of environmental regulations that limit water exports that once served several million acres of productive farmland. Sadly, those regulations have not helped endangered species recover and people like Vogel want to continue to try and fix the problem with a solution that is proven not to work.”
Compare that statement against the chart of the actual water exports from 1968 to 1989:
Clearly, the exported supplies have not been “decimated because of environmental regulations”. Rather the opposite, the requests for more water have continued to increase significantly with expansion of desert farm acreage on the westside, near I-5; primarily to expand almond exports to the growing markets in Asia. It is the ongoing increase in paper water contracts that continue to be bought by the agribusiness owners and sold by the state that exacerbates the problem.
The CFWC writer is correct though, the regulations have not helped endangered species recover. That is because the amount of water that continues to be exported is more than the environment can afford to lose. To recover, they need more fresh water. Until the state excepts the Delta Flow Report, the environmental regulations are the only thing that saves the salmon and other species from extinction.
It is unfortunate that false statements like those in the CFWC bulletin continue to fan the inability for the various stakeholders to come to a real solution.
We asked for more media involvement and Linda Yee, KPIX Channel 5 News picked up the gauntlet, producing a two-part series that aired Friday November 15th. The first covered Delta farmer (Hemley Farms), boaters (McCleery’s on the Delta), businessmen (Bill Pease at his marina) and community concerns in the video taken at the second BDCP In-Delta meeting at the Brentwood Library (including John and Diana Senter and Bob Ackerly).
The second piece features Bobby Brown, bass fisherman, and Linda Yee does a good job exposing Paramount Farms’ role including the Resnicks and their primary ownership of the Kern Water Bank.
- Nov. 15, 2013 Channel 5 News at 6 PM – Proposed Delta Water Tunnels Reignite Battle over Water Rights. Linda Yee, KPIX, news story on the impact of the Delta Tunnels on local communities and farmers.
- Nov. 15, 2013 Channel 5 News at 11 PM – Fish become the Focus in War over Future of Delta WaterLinda Yee, KPIX, exposes on the money behind the tunnels and Paramount Farms.
As we are in the final few months of 2013, the Save the California Delta Alliance would like to thank all you who have contributed to the cause this year – supporting the Save the Delta Charity Golf Event, volunteering to man booths at various events, and those who got on the bus to Sacramento. A special thanks to the volunteers who went door-to-door making sure our lawn signs were visible throughout Discovery Bay, north in Clarksburg and along highways in-between. Plus all others who are working to stay informed via our newsletters.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was delayed until November 15th and possibly later due to the government shutdown. Once it is released, there will be a 120 day comment period and we will be reaching out for your comments to be sent in.
In addition, my term as President is up at the end of this year and we are seeking a new President for 2014. I will remain in my Communications role. The formal responsibilities of the President are: “The President shall be the principal executive officer of the Association and shall in general supervise, direct, and control all of the business and affairs of the Association and officers. The President shall convene Board meetings and shall preside or arrange for other members of the Board to preside at each meeting.” Board meetings are held quarterly in Discovery Bay or more often as needed.
The new President will have guidance and support from existing Board of Directors and Steering Committee members including our outstanding Legal Council, Michael Brodsky, to help him/her come up-to-speed on the important issues and upcoming milestones.
We are seeking a person who cares about the Delta and who can represent the organization in public meetings (such as our yearly Town Hall Meeting) and smaller venues (speaking to boating clubs or farmer organizations), who likes to organize events and has leadership experience.
If you are interested, please contact me at stcda@nodeltagates.com.
Jan
Save the California Delta Alliance (STCDA) 