Darian
03-15-2014, 11:43 AM
At this point I've done a lot of reading and am thoroughly burned out on all of it. Some comments/observations follows:
Funding for BDCP activities is not yet secured. No secret here. Water contractors are realizing that costs overruns are increasingly possible and are expressing reservations. Funding for Delta restoration activities require a bond issue approved by a vote of the public. no guarantees.
There is no guarantee that planned environmental restoration activities will be completed. No money for this, no project (restoration).
BDCP operations will reduce the amount of water flowing through the Delta. Diverting upstream of the Delta will result in less water flowing through it.
Reduced flows from the Sacramento River from BDCP operations will result in increased salinity in the Delta. Again, no secrets here. Take more out, there's less available for everyone else and controlling saltwater intrusion.
The list of alternatives analyzed in the BDCP EIR/EIS doesn’t include any alternatives suggested by others. A "portfolio alternative" proposed by NRDC was not included in the BDCP EIR/EIS yet a response with analysis was issued by DWR but not included. Questionable that it wasn't included at best....
The value of the need for redundancy of having two bores (tunnels) is overstated. The need for a duplicate, parallel bore/tunnel is overstated as the requirement for service delivery in event of a shut down can still be carried out by the SWP pumps. In a dual conveyance diversion system redundancy is already provided by the existing SWP facilities.
There is no mention of providing support for collection and treatment of water run-off from agricultural and/or industrial activities. Support is provided for treatment of urban run-off. Why not agricultural/industrial run-off??
There doesn’t appear to be a monetary or time limit imposed on reimbursement for lost property tax revenues due to conversion of property for BDCP use. This amounts to a tax shift from general fund money to property tax revenues without limit.
In order to make the project more acceptable and more easily managed, the BDCP should be divided into two discreet and separate projects. Each project would require its own funding, planning, administration and if approved could be completed regardless of whether the other is completed, just as it is now but with a lower fog index.
Sorry for the cryptic note. There's much more info to include but I've had enough of reading the overblown sales pitch that this EIR/EIS amounts to....
Funding for BDCP activities is not yet secured. No secret here. Water contractors are realizing that costs overruns are increasingly possible and are expressing reservations. Funding for Delta restoration activities require a bond issue approved by a vote of the public. no guarantees.
There is no guarantee that planned environmental restoration activities will be completed. No money for this, no project (restoration).
BDCP operations will reduce the amount of water flowing through the Delta. Diverting upstream of the Delta will result in less water flowing through it.
Reduced flows from the Sacramento River from BDCP operations will result in increased salinity in the Delta. Again, no secrets here. Take more out, there's less available for everyone else and controlling saltwater intrusion.
The list of alternatives analyzed in the BDCP EIR/EIS doesn’t include any alternatives suggested by others. A "portfolio alternative" proposed by NRDC was not included in the BDCP EIR/EIS yet a response with analysis was issued by DWR but not included. Questionable that it wasn't included at best....
The value of the need for redundancy of having two bores (tunnels) is overstated. The need for a duplicate, parallel bore/tunnel is overstated as the requirement for service delivery in event of a shut down can still be carried out by the SWP pumps. In a dual conveyance diversion system redundancy is already provided by the existing SWP facilities.
There is no mention of providing support for collection and treatment of water run-off from agricultural and/or industrial activities. Support is provided for treatment of urban run-off. Why not agricultural/industrial run-off??
There doesn’t appear to be a monetary or time limit imposed on reimbursement for lost property tax revenues due to conversion of property for BDCP use. This amounts to a tax shift from general fund money to property tax revenues without limit.
In order to make the project more acceptable and more easily managed, the BDCP should be divided into two discreet and separate projects. Each project would require its own funding, planning, administration and if approved could be completed regardless of whether the other is completed, just as it is now but with a lower fog index.
Sorry for the cryptic note. There's much more info to include but I've had enough of reading the overblown sales pitch that this EIR/EIS amounts to....