Fed pushback on twin tunnels

[SeanO]

Not sure how official this is yet, but a good start for some much-needed outside guidance.

Delta tunnels: Major changes to environmental restoration could endanger Brown's water plan

Gov. Jerry Brown has billed his $25 billion plan to build two massive tunnels under the Delta as a way to not just make it easier to move water from north to south, but also increase the reliability of water supplies and bring back salmon and other endangered species.

But now the Brown administration is proposing a major and politically risky change: dropping a 50-year guarantee to restore the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta's environment. A centerpiece of the project, the environmental plan included $8 billion to preserve 100,000 acres of wetlands and dozens of other restoration efforts.

and so on...

http://www.mercurynews.com/drought/ci_27895910/delta-tunnels-major-changes-environmental-restoration-could-endanger?source=infinite

[Darian]

Interesting article. Has a few inaccuracies in it but overall covers the problem well. I saw the news flash on KCRA of the Governor talking to reporters. He said that the BDCP would be revised to drop the requirement for a 50 year permit(s), saying 30 seemed more appropriate. He seemed unconcerned about any outside influences and, judging from his past record of pursuing bombastic projects, he's going to try to make this happen or else.

One thing that I see repeated in all of the articles in print media is the idea that the pumps will not be operated after the project is constructed. The BDCP proposes a "dual conveyance system". That doesn't refer to the "twin tunnels", it refers to the operational schedule of the tunnels and pumps, combined. According to the BDCP, the tunnels will only operate when riverine flows are above some as yet unstated level. When flows drop below that point, pumping at Tracy would resume. This proposed ops plan is supposed to assure "reliability".

According to my last reading of the BDCP, the proposed diversion system is designed for a capacity of delivering 15,000 CFS to the canals. DWR has said that their permit will only allow diversion of 9,000 cfs. As we're all aware, provisions in permits may be changed after issuance. Now, add in to this the BDCP proposal to issue take permits to water contractors (who're re-paying the bonded indebtedness) and it's easy to imagine that after a short period of operation at 9,000 cfs, these contractors will push to increase the amount of water diverted to the maximum system design capacity, year around or, stop paying on the debt as they did with the federal government over Tulare basin drainage issues.... The best thing I saw in the article was the quote of Jason Peltier (Westlands):

"The construct of using a 50-year habitat conservation plan is done. It's off the table," said Jason Peltier, Westlands' deputy general manager. "The simple fact is that we don't have a viable project. We have never seen the state develop a plan that's affordable and improves water reliability and supply."

Hopefully, this is the point where everyone takes a deep breath and comes up with something doable but I'm not gonna to bet on it....

[SeanO]

Good rational perspective, as usual, D.


Interesting article. Has a few inaccuracies in it but overall covers the problem well. I saw the news flash on KCRA of the Governor talking to reporters. He said that the BDCP would be revised to drop the requirement for a 50 year permit(s), saying 30 seemed more appropriate. He seemed unconcerned about any outside influences and, judging from his past record of pursuing bombastic projects, he's going to try to make this happen or else.

One thing that I see repeated in all of the articles in print media is the idea that the pumps will not be operated after the project is constructed. The BDCP proposes a "dual conveyance system". That doesn't refer to the "twin tunnels", it refers to the operational schedule of the tunnels and pumps, combined. According to the BDCP, the tunnels will only operate when riverine flows are above some as yet unstated level. When flows drop below that point, pumping at Tracy would resume. This proposed ops plan is supposed to assure "reliability".

According to my last reading of the BDCP, the proposed diversion system is designed for a capacity of delivering 15,000 CFS to the canals. DWR has said that their permit will only allow diversion of 9,000 cfs. As we're all aware, provisions in permits may be changed after issuance. Now, add in to this the BDCP proposal to issue take permits to water contractors (who're re-paying the bonded indebtedness) and it's easy to imagine that after a short period of operation at 9,000 cfs, these contractors will push to increase the amount of water diverted to the maximum system design capacity, year around or, stop paying on the debt as they did with the federal government over Tulare basin drainage issues.... The best thing I saw in the article was the quote of Jason Peltier (Westlands):

"The construct of using a 50-year habitat conservation plan is done. It's off the table," said Jason Peltier, Westlands' deputy general manager. "The simple fact is that we don't have a viable project. We have never seen the state develop a plan that's affordable and improves water reliability and supply."

Hopefully, this is the point where everyone takes a deep breath and comes up with something doable but I'm not gonna to bet on it....