Coalition of....

[Darian]

Near Term Projects quietly made the news this week. The SacBee reported that this group has been working on near term projects for the Delta. The group consists of a bunch of very unlikely players, among which is Jason Peltier of Westlands Water District.

To date, the group has identified 43 potential projects, 2 of which have been approved. The first is recycling of treated sewage from the Sacramento metropolitan area. The second is the upgrade of levees for Middle and Old Rivers at a cost of $180.00 million.

Now, I think everyone can agree that recycling treated sewage water for several purposes is a good thing and probably should've been done long ago. The second is exactly what I would expect from a group in which Westlands principals participate. Upgrading the levees along Middle/Old Rivers benefits only water contractors in the southern SJ as those waterways (canals really) feed the pumps at Tracy.

Not only that, it seems to me that this might be an attempt to spread the cost of the levee upgrades across many sources but, as I recall, one of the guiding principles of the BDCP is that beneficiaries pay for projects. Check out the link:

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/10/16/4916439/coalition-recommends-projects.html

[Darian]

A bit of digging in legislative sites resulted in finding summary info about the proposed projects and funding at:

http://delta.senate.ca.gov/hearings

The hearing dated 10/15/12 has 3 links to this info in it. One of the most important is the document prepared by LAO for the committee. It indicates that funding is unsettled but does suggest some solutions to this problem. Kinda looks like there may be a redirect of some funding from bond issues not yet encumbered or sold and held by DWR. :-s

This info is well worth a look. :-|

[David Lee]

The introduced predatory fish species, have caused most of the ESA issues.

Not sure what you were high on when you wrote that , but I'll take a $30.00 bag of it . I could use a major escape from reality ...

D.~

[Darian]

"Rebuilding levees is an effort to save human life, if you think that our government should not engage in saving us delta dwellers from flood, why did they assume control over our levees...."

Again, an interesting perspective. I would tend to agree with the first sentence if all of the levees in the Delta were planned for immediate upgrade but the only levees scheduled for upgrade that were included in the Near Term Projects agenda are those that would facilitate diverting water from the Sacramento Rover through the Delta to the pumps. None of those appear to protect a population center from flooding. So, for me upgrade of levees is more about protecting those that enable increased delivery of water to the pumps in the short run rather than saving human life.

I recognize that the Core of Engineers has constructed many (not all) of the levees around the state. But, as of March 2012, writers at the SacBee reported in an article about public access to waters in the Delta that most levees were privately owned by the landowners whose land lies adjacent to the levee. So, when did the feds assume control of them???

I certainly agree that the Delta should be preserved but can't agree with your statement that only Delta landowners (not stakeholders) should have anything to say about this. If I'm not invited to the party because I don't pay property taxes down there, why are landowners asking for my time/resources to help them?? That's why stakeholders count. Can't find find much else to agree with in the rest of your statements either.

[JasonB]

... If you aren't paying property taxes in the delta, you aren't invited to the party...

Evens

Not to be too blunt, but that logic is really flawed; to say that only the local landowners should have any say so for what happens to the delta, it's water, and it's wildlife. Shall we apply that to each and every law, and regulatory process everywhere? Can a local landowner on some stream be free to decide what stuff they can dump in that river (for example)? The delta area taxpayers are not the only ones who will be affected by future developments and regulatory processes. I don't think that creating an us/them local/outsider division is a good thing either.
JB

[Mike O]

And I, for one, have no problems only using property taxes (or a proportion thereof) of the Delta landowners to pay for the improvements. If they use my tax money, or sell bonds that my tax money will pay off, then I have a seat at the virtual table.

PS, What part of the DELTA is ROBBINS in?

[Mike O]

I think many of us on the board are protected by levees of some sort. But the OP was about the Delta...

I agree that most, if not all imported species should be dynamited out, but the demise of the native fish has just as much to do with the San Joaquin Valley's insatiable stupidity of growing unnecessary water-intensive crops in a desert.

[Darian]

"Most levees constructed in the Delta were privately built by the landowners. Had that not happened it would be a lot different now. Maybe better maybe worse. But different. The control over the levee system was taken over by a partnership of state and fed to prevent individuals from building bigger levees than their neighbors...." (italics added)

With respect, I'm confused by the above statement. In your prior post, the motive for taking control was "....about saving lives." The above statement certainly doesn't appear to support that claim. Are you saying that both motives are in play here???

"The Coalition to Support Near-Term Delta Projects is a group of Delta stakeholders, including Delta residents, farmers, water agencies from around the state, and environmental groups. The coalition has identified 53 activities costing an estimated $770 million that could start within the next five years." (italics added) Taken from the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) report, 10/12. The LAO identified all participants which included Delta landowners, etc.

The following link is to a paper drafted for signature by those involved in Near Term Project Proposals. Take a good look at the 37 signatures at the end of the document. There're several Delta farming groups/landowners along with many stakeholders:

http://www.csus.edu/ccp/projects/Delta_Coalition_Transmittal_Letter_Projects_Octobe r_2012.pdf

The notion that Delta agencies/landowners are being excluded from the process doesn't appear to be supported by these documents.

Evens, it seems self defeating to say that anyone outside the Delta not be allowed to advocate on Delta growers/landowners behalf to preserve/restore it. This is going to be a numbers game and we should embrace all who are willing to help. :cool:

[Darian]

We're getting fairly far afield from the original post here. I think it's safe to conclude that we won't agree on most of your thoughts about this. For example:

"The dairy guys putting milk on the table for your children, and going broke doing it, the alfalfa guys feeding the high protein demanding meat,poultry, dairy complex, that is the baseline nutrition level for us, the highest in the world, is worth something. A long time ago the greatest generation saw the value of turning the San Joaquin valley into irrigated agriculture. To throw that away for some stupid put and take genetically engineered salmon run is just plain stupid."

I don't think anyone is saying that producing food/fiber is a bad thing or that its going to go away anytime soon. Agriculture in this state is just too profitable for that. Nor do I think anyone is saying that that activity will be "....thrown away." What I would like to see is that water used to irrigate crops of food/fiber on soil that is naturally polluted with mineral salts; then allowed to return to the Delta without treatment is held to be irresponsible and against the reasonable use doctrine. Clean it up before allowing it to run-off!!! Another ag issue is the massive subsidies to some of the largest corporate growers in the San Joaquin in the form of taxpayer funded crop insurance and price supports for dairy products and cotton (especially when there's a surplus of cotton in the world). I understand that direct cash subsidies have either been reduced or eliminated and were replaced by those mentioned. Let's modify these subsidies further. Finally, water contracts to growers in the San Joaquin have been for amounts per acre foot that do not represent the true market value of water. Just ask any water agency in SoCal what they have to pay for excess water from the water districts in the southern Valley. All I ask is that these issues be addressed and some reality be restored to the process before granting any further increase in diversion of water or adoption of the BDCP....

I'm not going to get into the Salmon issue except to say that commercial Salmon fisherman may have a very strong argument against your comments.

You keep citing the Hyperion as some sort of straw-man to divert attention from the fact that the water discharged into the ocean is treated before discharge. Probably won't satisfy you but it seems to me that that water is being re-cycled as it's ultimately picked up by the atmosphere and deposited in the form of rain on land, etc. Ag water run-off in the San Joaquin is not treated for reasons that the cost in relation to the benefit to growers is too high. for example, not much progress has been made on cleaning up Kesterson national Refuge over the last decades. Growers are trying to negotiate a deal for the remaining publicly owned water in San Luis Reservoir in exchange for cleaning up the mess that they created. At least the government hasn't fallen for that end run, yet. The run-off is still toxic and the "....world class sh_t.", from SoCal you mention is being recycled in the form of compost in the San Joaquin. Ironic, no????

[Darian]

I'm no fan of this project but wonder why you didn't start criticizing it before Brown became Governor??? The project and enabling legislation happened under Schwartzies administration. Neither am I a fan of either political party but your criticism of the current state administration seems to be a day late and a dollar short (as you've said, you've been excluded). You need to lighten up on the political commentary.... ;)

[Darian]

Good typo.... ;)

[Darian]

After reading it, whats to like or dislike??? Typically, lots of grandstanding included. I kinda feel like it's little more than a plan to plan.

The paper has some features that differ from the BDCP but, all in all suggests expanding conservation efforts and storage (more and higher dams/reservoirs), expansion of groundwater storage and water recycling, etc. Aside from the construction of new dams (maybe those will be necessary), who could argue with the suggestions?? Garamandi says he wants to bring all of the stakeholders together, implying that his idea is unique but that was what was proposed during the crafting of the current version of the BDCP. Maybe the flow/pumping concept Garamendi suggests will work out but it remains to be seen whether his plan to plan will be adopted as he describes it.

It's worth watching but I'm not holding my breath given the currently dysfunctional House of Representatives. I am curious about why Garamendi's (6th Congressional District) and Matsui's (3rd district) seem to have a serious geographic overlap problem. :confused:

[Darian]

"I haven't seen one word opposing the tunnels on this site, and that is fine if you support them. But if you don't, and your silence is bought and paid for by some political allegiance, then re- thinking those politics might be in order."

There're plenty of statements about the BDCP on this BB. Both, negative and positive. Some are in older posts/threads before you became a participant. Check 'em out in the archives.

The SacBee, like most news media, report whatever info they've been given by DWR on this subject. In the latest release of a section of the BDCP, there was mention of the need to relocate sections of hwy 160 that would cross over the construction area of the intakes until they're completed. Then Hwy 160 is to be moved back to it's original course which would pass right over the top of the intakes next to the river. To me, it's a bit more disturbing that a large forebay will be constructed near Walnut Grove to facilitate the intake of water from the river. Lots of productive farm land will be lost to that. Difficult to keep anything like that from public visibility.

According to one of the latest articles in the SacBee, DWR's director clearly stated that the state was legally authorized to initiate/construct the project without a vote and cited two former acts (unfortunately, I didn't write the cites down) to support that claim. So, it seems to me that the only things that could change that would be an initiative to force a vote or the legislature stepping in to legislate a change. Of course, loss of funding would be tough to overcome.

The article, also, mentioned that DWR would issue bonds to cover some of the costs. I wasn't aware that a state agency could issue bonds on it's own initiative. Doesn't the Treasurers Office have to issue and oversee state bonds??? :confused:

[bchris964]

Very knowledgeable research and forum. I read 3 or 4 thread and find this work amazing.
Human life is more important.The people living around any river might be at risk if the levees
are not built properly by the owners.So its construction is very important.