It's beginning to look like we may have a different Delta this Fall..

[Mike McKenzie]

The word from Bradford Island is that DWR is getting ready to put in the West False River barrier, despite what someone from DWR told someone from the Delta. ("We have assessed water supplies and demands. Based on this assessment, the emergency drought barriers will not be needed this year.")

Reports are that reclamation districts in the vicinity of False River have been told by DWR that their levees have to be improved to be ready to accept the barriers as of July 15, 2014.

DWR's website is still announcing that the Emergency Drought Barriers have been cancelled for 2014.

We'll just take this opportunity to add that this is the kind of confusion we can expect from BDCP with regard to "real time operations" of the Twin Tunnels. The left hand will never know exactly what the right hand is doing.

Read our entire newsletter here:
http://restorethedelta.org/news-from-restore-the-delta-june-5-2014/

I hope this ain't true but what's that old song?, "We've only Just begun"...?? Don't we just love that the lunatics run the asylum known as our state government

Mike

[Darian]

Thanks for the info Mike. In addition to the info you provided, the EIR/EIS doesn't appear to address the changing water situation in the Sacramento River with regard to sales of re-cycled.treated water from sanitation facilities (e.g. Sacramento Regional Sanitation District). Currently, all water diverted by municipal/regional water districts is normally used, treated and returned to a waterway. With the advent of a potential new standard for renewal of operation permits, water districts must try to recoup some of the costs of upgraded treatment by selling up to 100%, as in the case of Sacto, of the treated solids/water for AG use. This amounts to a complete loss of the water that would/should be returned to the waterway. The result of this situation is a reduced flow into the Delta from the Sacramento River. Now, add to that loss, daily diversion of the proposed 9,000 CFS with the capacity to pump 15,000 CFS if necessary from the Delta/Sacramento by the tunnels and you can see that the result will be greater salt water intrusion into the Delta. Also, in points raised by ycflyfisher in the Conservation Forum, what if each sanitation district upriver from Sacramento is required to upgrade their systems, requiring offsetting some of the costs by selling all of their treated water resulting in increased loss of water formerly returned to the river?? Also, take into account that the proposed Sites reservoir is off-line requiring diversion to fill as t lacks a source of in-flowing streams. It was not apparent that the requirements of the new standards for sewage treatment permits or the potential sale of recycled water was considered in any of the EIR/EIS documents I read.

A document made up of 34,000 pages (e.g. BDCP) and related documents isn't dynamic even tho the environment being assessed is. No mention of who's required to re-pay what amount?? No worries. The AG contractors still haven't repaid millions to the feds for cost of projects they agreed to repay. Don't get me started on the cost vs benefit of this $$$$$$$$ loser.

For almost every reason that I've read and thought about, this project is the wrong one at the wrong time.

[SeanO]

Thanks for keeping this on the "front page", guys. I learn lots from you here.

Best,

[Mike McKenzie]

Also, take into account that the proposed Sites reservoir is off-line requiring diversion to fill as t lacks a source of in-flowing streams. It was not apparent that the requirements of the new standards for sewage treatment permits or the potential sale of recycled water was considered in any of the EIR/EIS documents I read.
The AG contractors still haven't repaid millions to the feds for cost of projects they agreed to repay. Don't get me started on the cost vs benefit of this $$$$$$$$ loser.

For almost every reason that I've read and thought about, this project is the wrong one at the wrong time.

However, one of the biggest threats to the survival our anadromous fisheries is the Sites Reservoir proposal. If built, it would create a huge "water heater" for the Sacramento River. While the Sites Dam would be placed in probably one of the last usable "gun-sight" locations (which are most loved by Dam builders) Its reservoir would occupy a huge, extended very shallow valley. Their theory of operating it as an off river storage reservoir, which means filling it during periods of "high run off" (winter,spring) then draw it down for summer fall irrigation and M&I use, would in effect, create a much warmer Sacramento River, probably too warm for any out migrating salmonids. It would also steal necessary outflows to the SF Bay estuary that push back saltwater intrusion into the Delta exacerbating an already existing problem.

All this just to satisfy a few Corporate Ag. "farmers" who've planted 700,000+ acres of almond, Pistachio and pomegranate trees over the last 20+ years in a place they can't irrigate with local water. These same folks scream about how they're "feeding America" but in reality they are shipping our water to China in the form of Almonds and such....

Mike

[OceanSunfish]

Thanks as well.

[STEELIES/26c3]

All this just to satisfy a few Corporate Ag. "farmers" who've planted 700,000+ acres of almond, Pistachio and pomegranate trees over the last 20+ years in a place they can't irrigate with local water. These same folks scream about how they're "feeding America" but in reality they are shipping our water to China in the form of Almonds and such....

Don't forget the ALL ESSENTIAL pomegranates...

!!BOYCOTT POM JUICE!!

[ycflyfisher]

However, one of the biggest threats to the survival our anadromous fisheries is the Sites Reservoir proposal. If built, it would create a huge "water heater" for the Sacramento River. While the Sites Dam would be placed in probably one of the last usable "gun-sight" locations (which are most loved by Dam builders) Its reservoir would occupy a huge, extended very shallow valley. Their theory of operating it as an off river storage reservoir, which means filling it during periods of "high run off" (winter,spring) then draw it down for summer fall irrigation and M&I use, would in effect, create a much warmer Sacramento River, probably too warm for any out migrating salmonids. It would also steal necessary outflows to the SF Bay estuary that push back saltwater intrusion into the Delta exacerbating an already existing problem.

All this just to satisfy a few Corporate Ag. "farmers" who've planted 700,000+ acres of almond, Pistachio and pomegranate trees over the last 20+ years in a place they can't irrigate with local water. These same folks scream about how they're "feeding America" but in reality they are shipping our water to China in the form of Almonds and such....

Mike

Mike, Where do you get this stuff from? How exactly do you arrive at these opinions? I'd definitely like to see some references for these wild and biased opinions of yours for a change.

[John Sv]

Curious, not trolling...
If Sites had a bottom release, could it be a Sac river cooler instead of heater?
Thanks

[Darian]

I haven't seen the design drawings on the proposed off-line Sites Reservoir but from what I have read, it's located in a bowl shaped valley that has few if any natural streams for water sources. Can't say how deep the reservoir will be but, apparently, it has some natural drainage as DWR proposes to construct a dam at the low end of the valley to create storage (similar to San Luis Reservoir).

The project requires constructing an intake/outflow pumping station to fill the reservoir. These pumps require power to run them but this might be at least partially self sufficient similar to how water is pumped into and thru the aqueduct systems (maybe through use of solar power to draw water from the Sacramento River for fill operations or generation from water driven turbines when water is withdrawn??). I couldn't tell from what I've read or seen in drawings but it seems that the outflow valves would have to be low on the face of the dam or on the bottom of the reservoir in order to get the most volume of water out of the reservoir.

It was reported by news media and mentioned in some talks by Garamendi and a couple of other local pols that operation of the reservoir would require maximum in-flow pumping during periods of high water and minimal pumping for inflow during low water periods. Out-flow pumping is proposed to occur on demand.

I don't have anything concrete to support this but it does seem that this reservoir will be deep enough to stratify during the summer/winter months and turnover in the fall/spring. If it's a relatively shallow body of water, stratification may not be pronounced and might be warm. On the other hand, in a wet year it could be colder. Anybody's guess for now. Time to go back to the DWR website to see if there's anything new on this....

[Tony Buzolich]

Mike,

The mention of Sites acting as a "large water heater" just got me to thinking about the Afterbay on the Feather River at Thermolito. Wasn't that built with the intention of helping the rice growers with warmer water to aide in their crops? It seems to be working for them.

But at the same time hasn't it also raised the water temperature in the Feather River below the outlet? I'm sure this hasn't aided the salmon migration as they seek out cooler water to spawn.

When I used to guide that part of the river it was not uncommon to come across many salmon that looked perfectly fine but lay dead in the shallows. The water was always warm during the late summer and early fall. When asked about these dead fish at the hatchery it was always said that they had a gill disease related to the warm water. The water last week was 71 degrees. Not too good for fish looking for cooler temps.
Tony

[Darian]

Tony,.... Took the following info from Wikipedia, so, take it for what it's worth:

"Thermalito Afterbay[edit]

Part of the southern cut of Thermalito afterbay, off the Oroville wildlife area.
39°30′55″N 121°37′45″W

The Thermalito Afterbay is a significantly larger reservoir than that of the Forebay, and sits just 2 miles (3.2 km) south-west of the tail end of the Forebay, with only a 9,100-foot-long (2,800 m) canal connecting them. The Afterbay provides storage for the water required by the pumpback operation to Lake Oroville, helps regulate the power system, produces controlled flow in the Feather River downstream from the Oroville-Thermalito facilities, and provides recreation to the area. It also serves as a warming basin for agricultural water delivery to the numerous rice and grain fields just west of the Afterbay. (emphasis added) The Afterbay has a maximum operating storage of 57,040 acre feet (70,360,000 m3), a water surface area of 4,300 acres (17 km2) at max. storage, and a shoreline of 26 miles (at max. operating storage). Also, at 42,000 feet (13,000 m) long, Thermalito Afterbay Dam is the longest crest in the California State Water Project system. Construction on the Afterbay began in 1965 and was completed in 1968."

Looks like the afterbay has several purposes, one of which is warmed water for localized rice growers use. I had no idea that some volume of the water stored in the afterbay was returned to the reservoir after passing through the power generating plant.... :cool:

[ycflyfisher]

John,
I can’t say I read the entire PEIR package on Sites Reservoir, but I did read the alternatives which are the various incarnations of the proposed project, the thermal modeling and the impacts to anadromous salmonids. I don’t know the specific answer to your question, but can tell you that Mike’s conclusions on Sites are nothing short of bizarre and simply are not true.

From memory, the river temp modeling was based on 60-70 years of historic data for which conditions and river temps were known, and these models are based on thermodynamic mass balancing, and not any wildly speculative method. In other words, the potential “opinion” that the temp model is somehow fubar’d is not a sound opinion.

What Sites would actually do is drop the temps at the river reception point from Sites Reservoir by a bit (not much, fractions of a degree in most years, IIRC) during the summer months and not act as a “water heater” as Mike is attempting to lead everyone to believe. It would raise the temps at the same location (again, fractions of a degree most years) during the winter months when the river is running cold, when Sites is allowed to fill. So no winter “water heater” season either.

The mechanism which accomplishes the more favorable temp regime Sites would provide is the Sites operational strategy that comes with the actual physical reservoir: Sites would only discharge during the spring and fall (when water temps from Sites are favorable) and not during the summer “water heater” season as Mike somehow concludes is going to happen.

What Sites would actually do (and how it creates more fish friendly temp regimes in the summer) in terms of the ecological benefit to salmonids, is preserve the cold water pool potential of Shasta, Oroville and Folsom by providing a portion of the flows required for both ecological and human demand during the spring and late fall so the other reservoirs with greater CWP potential would not be drawn down as much during those periods.

Considering that flows to fill Sites would only be diverted during the winter when the X2 is pushed far downstream, I’m also not seeing Mike’s concern about intrusion to be something to actually be concerned about.

The fisheries models are not as bulletproof as the thermal modeling, but are the best info available also point to Sites being advantageous for all (fall, winter, Late fall, etc) salmonid abundance IIRC.

A project the scope of Sites definitely is going to have significant negative impacts to species of concern (mainly from displacement/flooding of the lake footprint IIRC). Sites from what’s proposed, would have a positive impact to Sacto salmonids from all indicators and should not be thrown under the bus without so much as a second thought or actual fact checking.

[ycflyfisher]

I haven't seen the design drawings on the proposed off-line Sites Reservoir but from what I have read, it's located in a bowl shaped valley that has few if any natural streams for water sources. Can't say how deep the reservoir will be but, apparently, it has some natural drainage as DWR proposes to construct a dam at the low end of the valley to create storage (similar to San Luis Reservoir).

The project requires constructing an intake/outflow pumping station to fill the reservoir. These pumps require power to run them but this might be at least partially self sufficient similar to how water is pumped into and thru the aqueduct systems (maybe through use of solar power to draw water from the Sacramento River for fill operations or generation from water driven turbines when water is withdrawn??). I couldn't tell from what I've read or seen in drawings but it seems that the outflow valves would have to be low on the face of the dam or on the bottom of the reservoir in order to get the most volume of water out of the reservoir.

It was reported by news media and mentioned in some talks by Garamendi and a couple of other local pols that operation of the reservoir would require maximum in-flow pumping during periods of high water and minimal pumping for inflow during low water periods. Out-flow pumping is proposed to occur on demand.

I don't have anything concrete to support this but it does seem that this reservoir will be deep enough to stratify during the summer/winter months and turnover in the fall/spring. If it's a relatively shallow body of water, stratification may not be pronounced and might be warm. On the other hand, in a wet year it could be colder. Anybody's guess for now. Time to go back to the DWR website to see if there's anything new on this....

Darian,

By my take, the key to understanding what Sites will really do to the water temps is to read the operational strategy. Once you understand that Sites doesn't have a truncated trib of the Sacto River below it, that it has to feed 24/7, 365 days a year and the intent is a systemic approach that only discharges from Sites to the river in only the months where Sites would have a cooling influence, well..... hope no more needs to be said about the "Sites Sauna" take.

[Darian]

YCFF,.... Thanks for the info. Can't find much to disagree with in your assessment. What worries me is the number of federal and state bills proposing increased storage in the form of expansion of existing or construction of new capacity. Also, the shear total number of diversions (existing/proposed) from the Trinity/Sacramento watersheds, the San Joaquin watershed and their cumulative impacts is massive.

I'm guessing that DWR is in charge of implementing the operational strategy and the Delta Water Master is charged with watching/reporting on it but do you have any info on that??? One question that comes to mind is will Sites be filled during winters when we have a low water year in the Sacramento/Trinity Watersheds or is there a minimum flow level established for pumping to fill Sites???

[SeanO]

Good info. here to soak up!

One thing to keep in mind is that fish other than salmonids also need water. Sturgeon need high flows on the Sac to make their spawning run, probably delta species would enjoy more water as well. Not sure how much water would be taken to fill Sites, but I think we should just try to live with less water and leave AT LEAST whatever there is now to the fish.

Take care,

[ycflyfisher]

Darian,
As far as implementation goes, since it’s on the DWR website, I’d assume they’d be charged with implementation. I’m not sure who would be in charge of accountability.

I read the portions of the Sites package that I mentioned when it came out about 6 months ago, so I don’t remember the details of the fill schedule. For EIRs like this one, typically all I usually read are the sections regarding what’s actually being proposed and how it will operate, and the sections which discuss impacts to fisheries. The fisheries related factors are important to me and my retention is usually pretty good in that regard, but the admin stuff, not so much so. Here’s a link to the TOC:
http://www.water.ca.gov/storage/northdelta/prelim_admin_draft_eir_index.cfm

Personally, I’m not very concerned about what the politicians are proposing in a year like this one. Politicians by my account are much more reactive than proactive, and most are simply reacting to the concerns of their constituents because everyone is concerned about the drought and rightfully so. They feel like they must propose some solutions to make their constituents happy, even when they know those proposals are not viable and will never actually gain traction. They don’t gain traction, but somehow usually manage to get reelected.