Defunding the delta

[FlyReelFisher]

Please folks, call you local Member of the House of Represetatives. Please!! Your voice counts.

There are attempts to eliminate funding for delta restoration. Important to Salmon, Steelhead and Striper Fisherman.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41685/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=JLODxa6X&src=cat

[cyama]

This is important for the delta and the fish that run all the way up to the Yuba, Lower Sac and Feather. Darian do you have email addresses or phone numbers of who to call? If someone can post them I am sure more people will get the word out....

[Darian]

cyama,.... You can find the contact info for each US Senator (Boxer/Feinstein) and your representative in the House (mine is Matsui) thru Google. One thing to be aware of is that Feinstein used to discourage contact thru e-mail even tho she has an e-mail address. The others seem to accept/respond to e-mails freely.

[cyama]

Take a minute to flood Feinstein's Office

http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactUs.EmailMe

[cyama]

Send more emails to John Garamendi in Solano County

http://garamendi.house.gov/contact/email-me.shtml

[Frank Alessio]

Stop voting for Idiots.....

[Darian]

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Especially super rich idiots.... (ever seen Feinstein's disclosure statement :?: )

[FlyReelFisher]

Any change on this issue Darian? Thought I'd ask since you seem to usually be the best informed of current events...

[Darian]

I haven't seen anything on this recently. However, given the current stance on funding anything in Congress (with notable exception of the "earmarks" for additional water activities in Cal.), I don't see this changing anytime soon. :neutral:

Everything I've been following indicates that we'll have more dams, more transport and sale of water for downstream users (funded by "earmarks"/additional water sales). For example, the Sacramento Regional Sewage Treatment District has asked the legislature to grant water rights to allow it to sell treated water to willing buyers (see AB 134 in the current session). What's unique about this is that the district wants to extract an amount of treated water from the river equal to the amount of water it places back into it. Presumably, the extracted water would be sold and the treated water would remain in the river. According to the district, the sales would keep rates low by offsetting the estimated costs of upgrading to the treatment process required by the Water Quality Control Board. The infrastructure already exists for part of it (e.g. Jt. facility with EBMUD and anticipated contruction of a peripheral conveyance system, etc.) :neutral:

ps. If I understood it correctly, a SacBee article about the proposed canal mentioned that the intake pipes required would exceed the current combined pumping capacity by 5 times the fed/state pumps at Tracy.