Darian
01-04-2014, 10:44 PM
Today, the SacBee published a letter from a retired DWR official (Jerry Meral former Deputy Secretary) titled, "Delta tunnels won't hurt Sacramento." Check it out:
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/04/6042726/another-view-delta-tunnels-would.html
This letter was sent in response to prior letter to the Bee by Assemblyman Rodger Dickinson raising concerns and advocating for ".... a bigger voice in Delta tunnel plan,....". It mainly discussed water issues. Meral's letter makes a black/white statement and a couple of guarantees that he should realize are not absolutes. For example, he states in part, "Layers of institutional guarantees ensure that none of Sacramento's water could ever be diverted by the state and federal water projects." Aren't all three of the intakes located on the river within the county of Sacramento???
Meral's letter is illustrative of a narrow view of impacts on Sacramento and other Delta cities/counties. It makes a cursory attempt to address those concerns by assuring us that there will be no harm to this area thru construction of the tunnels. The problem with that view is that there're so many more negative peripheral impacts involved than placement of intakes and the benefits of moving those intakes upstream from the south Delta, etc. For example, the construction footprint in southern Sacramento County will permanently remove approximately 2,000 acres of prime ag and environmentally sensitive land (stone Lakes??), ag profits from that activity and property tax revenues. That's just in this county. Each county where construction and restoration is planned will face the same impacts and more. An issue I have with the loss of revenues is that the state has once again stepped in to provide an incentive for support by guaranteeing reimbursement of the revenue losses from the state's general fund. I found this mentioned in an article in the Sacbee last year but was unable to find any mention of this in any of the plan documents.
Although construction impacts have been mentioned in the EIR/EIS, the actual impacts will include destroyed properties thru temporary relocation of highways/roads, large earthmoving trucks making many trips on local roads and Hwy 160 in Sacto County a very narrow access to the intake sites. Maybe the relatively new overpass to nowhere across I-5 at Freeport was built to accommodate construction of an access point off that highway(???). Enough from me. Read the letter and form your own opinion.
http://www.sacbee.com/2014/01/04/6042726/another-view-delta-tunnels-would.html
This letter was sent in response to prior letter to the Bee by Assemblyman Rodger Dickinson raising concerns and advocating for ".... a bigger voice in Delta tunnel plan,....". It mainly discussed water issues. Meral's letter makes a black/white statement and a couple of guarantees that he should realize are not absolutes. For example, he states in part, "Layers of institutional guarantees ensure that none of Sacramento's water could ever be diverted by the state and federal water projects." Aren't all three of the intakes located on the river within the county of Sacramento???
Meral's letter is illustrative of a narrow view of impacts on Sacramento and other Delta cities/counties. It makes a cursory attempt to address those concerns by assuring us that there will be no harm to this area thru construction of the tunnels. The problem with that view is that there're so many more negative peripheral impacts involved than placement of intakes and the benefits of moving those intakes upstream from the south Delta, etc. For example, the construction footprint in southern Sacramento County will permanently remove approximately 2,000 acres of prime ag and environmentally sensitive land (stone Lakes??), ag profits from that activity and property tax revenues. That's just in this county. Each county where construction and restoration is planned will face the same impacts and more. An issue I have with the loss of revenues is that the state has once again stepped in to provide an incentive for support by guaranteeing reimbursement of the revenue losses from the state's general fund. I found this mentioned in an article in the Sacbee last year but was unable to find any mention of this in any of the plan documents.
Although construction impacts have been mentioned in the EIR/EIS, the actual impacts will include destroyed properties thru temporary relocation of highways/roads, large earthmoving trucks making many trips on local roads and Hwy 160 in Sacto County a very narrow access to the intake sites. Maybe the relatively new overpass to nowhere across I-5 at Freeport was built to accommodate construction of an access point off that highway(???). Enough from me. Read the letter and form your own opinion.