BDCP-Draft EIR/EIS....

[Darian]

Scanned Chapters 1, 4 & 6 at a high level, so far. Not much new to report. However, it's plain that this document is a study to justify the tunnels as the only real alternative. Of the alternatives considered, 6 were various configurations of tunnels, one canal and another, thru Delta conveyance. The preferred alternative is a set of tunnels that capable of producing 9,000 CFS. None of the alternatives considered were outside of the Delta. No mention/evaluation of DeSal, retiring marginal ag land or a no change position. So, there's no doubt that this is an agriculture/development/industrial friendly project before anything else.

The cost estimates appear to be higher than previous estimates. Of course, that could be due to more/accurate info to evaluate.

Lots of stuff to check out, yet.

[Darian]

Chapter 19 considers impacts on transportation and risks for disruption of same. Transportation in the Delta/vicinity includes all roadways, railways, shipping by waterways, bridges, airports, etc. One of the statements included in this chapter and others has bothered me. It concerns the danger of a seismic event.

"The Delta and vicinity are within a highly active seismic area, with a generally high potential for 17 major future earthquake events along nearby and/or regional faults, and with the probability for such events increasing over time. Based on the location, extent and minimally engineered nature of many existing levee structures in the Delta area, the potential for significant damage to, or failure of, these structures during a major local seismic event is generally moderate to high. For major earthquakes along larger faults, ground rupture can extend for considerable distances (hundreds or thousands of feet),...."

First, I'm sure that there're earthquake faults within the bay area and there may be a couple of minor faults within the plan area. The only active faults I can think of have been in the foothills or bay area proper (outside the plan area). In my time living in the Sacramento area, there have been only two earthquakes that I can recall, the Oroville quake in the late 70's or early 80's and the Loma Prieta Quake. Of the two, only the Loma Prieta caused major damage and then in the bay area (not in the Delta).

Second, the statement, "....with the probability for such events increasing over time." Has always seemed to me to be an attempt to assign a level of fear to an event that may or may not happen withi the life span of the tunnels. If I recall correctly, the statistical probability of such an occurrence doesn't change from day to day unless one or more of the bases for the premise changes. So that the probability of occurrence remains unchanged each day. But, let's say that one of these events does occur after construction of the tunnels. Given the portion of the statement about the damage "....can occur for considerable distances....", what's the potential risk and/or for the tunnels themselves to be damaged or collapse??? I'm still looking for an indication that this potential event and outcome has been considered. Gotta be in there somewhere....

[Darian]

Noticed a link to an article in the San Jose Mercury News over on Blanton's BB. The article raises some interesting points about the potential, real costs in developing/building the tunnels. Check it out:

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_24795356/delta-tunnels-plans-true-price-tag-much-67

These figures are daunting and comparable to building Desal projects. If, as DWR says, Desal is too costly, what is it that makes the BDCP dual conveyance system more desireable?? IMO, the answer is that contracting for water at below market price/value from the CVP/SWP creates a major discount/subsidy for water contractors. Thus, reducing any incentive to conserve or buy from any other source. If the contract price of water included actual costs plus some revenue for other required infrastructure investments or the ecosystem restoration in the Delta, Desal would become a much more viable alternative.

[OceanSunfish]

Thanks Darian for keeping us informed.

[Darian]

This subject has really caught the eye of the print media in the San Joaquin Valley as well as here. Amazingly, I haven't seen much mention of it (cost estimates) in TV news media. Not sexy enough I'm guessing....

At any rate, there seems to be an element of error in the reporting on this subject. Every article I've read on this including that on the BDCP website all state that the costs will be re-paid by rate-payers thru water contractors.

Funding for planning, development and construction of "the tunnels", will come from long term bonds (in the amount of $14.0 billion) issued by the DWR. The Delta restoration effort will be funded by long term, general obligation bonds (in the amount of $11.0 Billion) if approved for issuance by vote of the public for a total of $25.0 Billion. Some papers reported the total as $26.0. No mention of who will actually repay the cost of servicing this debt is made in any media I've read. The articles did say that all of the financing details haven't been settled, yet.

Debt service is repayment of interest that accrues over the life of the bonds. Assuming that the reported total cost is correct ($67.0 Billion), a quick calculation shows that the cost of interest on the bonds will be $42.0 Billion. Repayment of the principal accrued on the DWR bonds is to be paid by the water contractors thru their rate-payers. Interest accrued on those bonds is to be repaid from the state's General Fund or tax revenues (verbally confirmed in one of the local presentations by DWR Admin.). Repayment of the bonds for Delta restoration is to be repaid entirely from the General Fund or every taxpayer, statewide.

So, it looks to me that water contractors thru their ratepayers will repay $14.0 billion in principal (no interest) while taxpayers and ratepayers of the water contractors will repay $53.0 Billion for debt service in the form of funds from the state's General Fund. Among others, the sources of income for the General Fund are Personal Income, Sales and Use Taxes. Under this scenario, ratepayers (agricultural/industrial/municipal) will pay thru their water contractors and again thru their Personal Income, Sales and Use Tax payments. All (north and south) of the rest of us will pay thru our taxes.

WOW!!! Such a deal, huh????

[Darian]

As I wade through the mass of printed info/material on this (....I'm only reviewing sections/subjects that interest me), it makes me wonder why this document was so many pages; 34,000. DWR claims that the document is the product of development over a 7 year period. The question came from an reader. Now, DWR has established a 120 day period for public review/comment. So, lets see how this impacts potential readers; 7 years = 3,657 days for dvlpmt, 120 days for rvw/comment = .03% of total days for development are allocated for review/comment. Not sure what that's worth, just thinking out loud.

Minor fact; Total amount of Delta ag/grazing land impacted by construction of water diversion facilities, including disposal of dirt/materials = 6,600 acres in the project area. At least 1,300 of those acres will be temporarily impacted.

Here's some info, a question follows. One of the anticipated adverse affects of the preferred alternative for diversion was that it would reduce sediment entering the plan area downstream of the intakes. The result was potential negative impact for Delta Smelt. Wasn't increased water clarity due (in part) to invasive species, etc., one of the contributors to Pelagic Organism Decline (POD), as well?? Given the importance of POD in the Delta food chain, it seems like it should be addressed. Yet, I haven't seen any discussion of potential impact on POD in the parts of the EIR/EIS that I've scanned, so far. Has anyone seen any discussion of POD in these documents???

[Darian]

After reading the BDCP EIR/EIS Executive Summary, several sections of the report and letters making comments to DWR, it seems to me this draft document was released for public comment too soon. The document reads like sales pitch with lots of promises but few replies to comments/points made or answers to questions raised. Following is a link to a comment letter made by Friends of the River raising some concerns about the document:

http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/Friends_of_the_River_Letter_11-18-2013.sflb.ashx

This is provided to give everyone an idea about the nature of comments made by many other commenters.

Doctor Jerry Meral, formerly of DWR and rumored to be the governors right hand man on this project, recently left state service to work at an NGO (can't recall the name of the NGO). With Meral gone, does this mean that the draft document will actually be retracted for further study??? Who will replace Dr. Meral???