California Katrina?

[Mark Kranhold]

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/californias-katrina-coming/?mbid=psocial_rs

[Darian]

This article sounds a lot like the sales/speculation job included in the original BDCP EIR/EIS that was criticized by many reviewers and now in WaterFix (believe it or not, some of us read those comments). For once, can we please just stop the fear tactics??? :mad:

[Lew Riffle]

All reasonable questions to ask but reasonable people come up with better conclusions than this guy does like maybe we should not ask so much from the delta and figure out how to make freshwater water by 2100 rather than all the speculation of what could happen by then

[Mike McKenzie]

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/californias-katrina-coming/?mbid=psocial_rs

This is nothing more than pure pro build the Delta tunnels propaganda to ensure that the steady flow of Northern California's water continues to sustain the flow of taxpayer dollars to wealthy Corporate Ag. folks, some of which make more money reselling subsidized water at market rates due to the drought windfall than they do on their subsidized crops irrigated with subsidized water.
For non subsidized nut crops they've planted about 150,000 unsustainable acres of thirsty almond trees since the drought started. Our idiot Governor is willing to sacrifice the Delta to support the "nuts"!Here's a look at the future with respect ag water supply..
http://www.alternet.org/environment/its-nuts-californias-drought-started-water-hungry-almonds-planted-150000-more-acres
Mike

[TyV]

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/californias-katrina-coming/?mbid=psocial_rs


Mark, thanks for sharing this article. I am really bummed by the reactionary responses you have gotten to your post so far. The reality is that this is a situation that makes the entire state vulnerable...nothing more, nothing less. Not if, but rather when something like this happens...the state needs to be prepared for the eventuality. This isn't political, has nothing to do with the governor...it has to do with the earth and where we live. The realities of mother nature on the piece of ground we currently call home/California. The bigger picture sadly escapes most and humans rarely seem to learn from history. We would rather stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the reality isn't true...because that is less scary AND more convenient in our lives. I hope that it doesn't happen in our lifetimes AND that when it does happen, enough of those in power had the foresight to prepare to mitigate the impact.

[Darian]

concerning the Delta and solutions proposed to solve it's/SoCal's problems, pro and con.

This article is one of several that have appeared in the media each time there's some perceived counter to the proposed WaterFix (formerly BDCP) project. In each instance where the people who oppose the project, whether it be for excessive costs, or predicted/proposed negative impacts or whatever, some distinguished member of the academic/scientific community steps forward to offer an opinion supporting or contradicting an opinion by someone raising concerns with proposed solutions. These supporting statements are almost all identical to each other and parrot language included in the original BDCP, the EIR/EIS and revised EIR/EIS documents. Frankly, since almost all of the supportive commentary comes from those on the state payroll (academic/employee) it sounds like sound bites provided by the Governor/DWR. The article characterizes opponents as a coalition of environmentalists and fisherman(??). Those are only two of many who have and do openly oppose the project.

One point that was made by the author of this article is the statement that the best solution is "....strategic withdrawal....", depopulation of the Delta. I've not heard that one before but it certainly does surprise me that it made it into an article for release to the public. There're so many problems with that idea it boggles the mind. For one, there's no indication of whether the author meant all or part of the Delta. Just to give an idea of what might be involved, aren't the cities of Stockton, Rio Vista, Antioch, Isleton, Manteca in the Delta??? The potential cost would be many times more than the cost of the tunnels project and the discussion didn't take into account the loss of income/revenue from farming in the Delta.

Maybe at this point, everyone isn't sure that this article is an example of using fear tactics to get something done.... Try this one: a prediction made was that storms would be 110 to 150 times more powerful by 2,100 (that's 85 years from now). Another is the potential for a "....3% to 4% chance...." of a 6.7 earthquake near the Delta in the next 30 years. How, when USGS can't accurately predict earthquakes now, can they predict the precise magnitude of same?? They've been making predictions about the "....big one...." along the San Andreas fault since I was a kid (and that's a while ago, now). One more example: if 50 breaches across many islands would occur simultaneously, 1.2 million ACF of ocean water would flood the Delta. 50 breaches, simultaneously??? This is a good example of computer modeling done by futurists but used to sell a project by creating the fear of a predicted, negative event happening.

The word with the biggest impact in the article is "if". That word lends to the element of speculation involved. In writing the article a better choice of words would've been "when" but that would require a level of certainty not evident. The danger of using fear tactics is that most people believe that these horrendous events could occur tomorrow when, in fact, experts can't be sure of the magnitude of or when these things would occur. All of that feeds in to needs of politicians like the governor (who has a tendency to propose gigantic/bombastic projects), to create a legacy for themselves. So, whether anyone likes it or not there is a political element involved.

So, there's a lot more involved here than the idea that we must go on a crash program, today, to prepare for some imagined catastrophic event 30 to 85 years in the future. Believe it or not other/better solutions are in the planning process even now. IMO, the full court press is on because these newer, planned solutions hold the potential to make the current WaterFix project unnecessary.

[Bob Loblaw]

This is nothing more than pure pro build the Delta tunnels propaganda to ensure that the steady flow of Northern California's water continues to sustain the flow of taxpayer dollars to wealthy Corporate Ag. folks, some of which make more money reselling subsidized water at market rates due to the drought windfall than they do on their subsidized crops irrigated with subsidized water.
For non subsidized nut crops they've planted about 150,000 unsustainable acres of thirsty almond trees since the drought started. Our idiot Governor is willing to sacrifice the Delta to support the "nuts"!Here's a look at the future with respect ag water supply..
http://www.alternet.org/environment/its-nuts-californias-drought-started-water-hungry-almonds-planted-150000-more-acres
Mike

There's a little more to it than that. The Delta supplies water for much of the Bay Area too and if there was a catastrophic event like a large storm or an earthquake, large parts of Contra Costa, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties would be without water. the refineries in Contra Costa that supply gas to all of Northern California will be put out of operation. The tunnels might be a solution to bitter to swallow for many, but there needs to be a solution. Doing nothing is just sticking your head in the sand and waiting for disaster.

Its not feasible to shore up thousands of miles of earthen levees. The Delta as we know it has been changing for hundreds of years and it is no longer a natural ecosystem. it is completely man made and man managed and when people say "Restore the Delta" the obvious question is "to what"? restore it to the big tule flood plain it once was? get rid of the striped bass? remove the levees and rip rap? or restore it to the aquarium it was 20 years ago? Ask 100 people and you'll get 100 answers.

There are no easy answers and whatever the final solution happens to be, a lot of people will be upset. What will probably happen is that we will fight about what to so for so long, and mother nature will intervene and tell us what it will be. When that happens there will be no Delta and no water.

Valley farmers know that with current climate patterns and the overdraft in groundwater banks, that they risk losing 40% of their viable land in the next 20 years. They seem to be willing to give up significant quantities of water, and dedicate that water to environmental flows, if they can get a deal on a fix to the conveyance.

If everyone, residential, agriculture, and industry gives up 15% and we dedicate that water to permanent environmental flows, there should be enough room there to make a deal on a conveyance system that won't collapse in a storm or earthquake.

At the end of the day, the Delta cannot be preserved in its current form. It is a house of cards. Unless we invest in better management to divert big spring run off events such as Sites Reservoir or expanding Los Vaqueros, as well as a conveyance to appease those who will pay for all this infrastructure, California will cease to exist as we currently know it and that will not be good for any of us.

[Frank Alessio]

Hey Mark...The one big difference is New Orleans was built below sea level...Down there it is not IF it will happen again it is WHEN it will happen again...Then they will use OUR taxes to do it all over again...

[Darian]

"....The tunnels might be a solution to bitter to swallow for many, but there needs to be a solution. Doing nothing is just sticking your head in the sand and waiting for disaster."

I'm not sure what the absolute urgency of this is(???) unless the Brown administration feels that they must get something done before their time runs out. But, I do agree that "....there needs to be a solution." Contrary to what WaterFix project supporters keep saying, we're not doing nothing. DWR describes having a water portfolio that includes new storage and recharge facilities. I'm in agreement with proposed reservoirs being constructed and maybe the capacity of others being expanded. Especially with the availability of new bond revenues. Also, when last I checked, there were several planned DeSal plants on the drawing board for the south coast and bay area. Also, There're new projects in SoCal that provide new sources for water (check out Cadiz). How about treating and recycling of water used for irrigation rather than dumping it back (untreated) into waterways like the Sacramento/San Joaquin Rivers?? That would surely reduce demand by growers, leaving more for environmental flows.

What bothers me about the tunnels (aside from the fact that it's likely to turn the Delta into a saltwater marsh) is the single minded, sales pitch approach of DWR (to the exclusion of really considering any other solution).

"Valley farmers....seem to be willing to give up significant quantities of water, and dedicate that water to environmental flows, if they can get a deal on a fix to the conveyance."

Not sure that valley growers are willing to give up much of anything. From the actions of Westlands, et. al., in trying to force stopping release of water into the Trinity for environmental flows to their reported reluctance to agree to paying for the WaterFix project as cost (in the form of reduced flows) outweighs benefit. The deal they appear to want is to either shift more of the cost of the tunnels project to the taxpayer or get increased flows from the project. As proposed, the plan would allow diversion of 9,000 CFS but remember, the chosen dual conveyance system in WaterFix has a maximum capacity of 15,000 CFS when using the CVP/SWP pumps/tunnels simultaneously. I'll bet there're very few people who believe that planned flows will not be increased to maximum capacity over time??? Combine that with sea level rise and we'll be shark fishing off the docks in Old Sacramento.

[Bob Loblaw]

We know a few things for certain.

1. The climate is changing and our old water storage and conveyance system that is designed to slowly collect and transport snowmelt from the Sierra all summer long is not well designed to capture the sort of one off huge run off events that are predicted going forward.
2. South of the Delta farmers have received almost no water from Shasta and Oroville this year and have been pumping groundwater like crazy. That is not a sustainable model. In as little as 5 years those aquifers might be empty.
3. The delta levees are old, poorly designed and maintained, and are in danger of catastrophic collapse from either an earthquake or a severe storm. If such a failure occurs the intakes for the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project as well as numerous local intakes will be inundated with salt water. That is a minimum 5 year fix and will bankrupt California. It will make Katrina and Sandy look like storms in teacups. The Delta is an incredibly vulnerable spot in a $2.3 trillion economy, the 8th biggest in the world if California was a country.

We know going forward that we will have less water and what water we get is likely to come earlier in the season in much larger events...rain instead of snow. We need to engineer ways to capture and transport that water as well as to maintain environmental flows. everyone needs to give. The farmers will come around and are already in discussions about concessions for environmental flows...they can see the writing on the wall if there is no grand bargain on this. They might have senior water rights....but what happens when there's no water? what are those rights worth?

We need to build Sites Reservoir, we need to recharge aquifers across the state, we need to recycle a LOT more water than at present, and everyone needs to make do with less...except the environment, its on life support. Can all this be done? I think it can, but everyone needs to concede a little.

On the size of the tunnels being proposed, I have no problem with that. If, as the climate scientists are predicting, there will be huge flood events on the Sacramento River instead of the steady snow melt flows we are accustomed to, we need to capture as much of that water as possible during those events. that means big tunnels and more south of the delta storage that can be filled during these storm events. The important question is who controls the spigot during non storm scenarios. If we can get guaranteed flow minimums as part of a grand bargain, why would anyone oppose the tunnels?

The delta is being held hostage in the current negotiations with both sides holding a gun to its head waiting to see who blinks first. If nobody acts, as I said earlier, mother nature will intervene and there will be no more delta and no more water. As for the urgency, California gets a catastrophic storm event on average every 200 years. The last big one was 1862 when it rained every day for 3 months and you could row a boat from Redding to Bakersfield on what was a huge lake. That storm bankrupted the state. The delta levees in their current state can not handle that volume of water and will collapse and the delta will become a big brackish lake. we are also past due on a big earthquake on the Hayward & Concord faults. If either of those fails on a big scale the same thing will happen, the levees will fail and salt water will rush in from the bay, inundating all the freshwater intakes possibly as for east as Sacramento. that's why we need to act. the clock is ticking.

[Larry S]

I profess my ignorance with matters concerning the Bay and Delta projects; but, I do have much respect for those
posters expressing opinions and offering suggestions here. My 2-cents concern the need to urgently consider
the use of de-sal for the state. Problems exist; but, solutions abound. De-sal and re-use will be the keys to
future water problems.
Best to all of the ardent and dedicated water stewards on the Kiene forum,
Larry S

[Bob Loblaw]

Desal is very energy intensive, very expensive, and creates a lot of toxic brine that is difficult to dispose of. Desal runs about $2,000 per acre foot to produce at present but there are some guys at Lawrence Livermore Labs who are developing new technology to do low voltage desal instead of traditional membrane methods that might be a game changer if they can scale it. Probably a decade away from implementation though.

I agree about re-use. We need to use fresh water multiple times before it goes down the drain the final time.

[Darian]

Bob Loblaw,.... All of the catastrophic scenarios you envision would indeed cause major economic/human suffering, IF they occur now. And, there may be an insignificant statistical possibility that they could occur. I just don't share your feeling of urgency or your dismissal of the Delta as a place to be sacrificed for economic interests. If everyone must sacrifice, then make it so. Trouble is, only Delta AG/economics/recreation interests will be sacrificed.

If a major flood event (as described occurs every 200 years) happened, it's likely the gravity fed tunnel intakes would be damaged/destroyed by uprooted, floating debris (including entire trees) being transported by the flows as well as collapsed levees. So, there's potential for stoppage of water delivery by CVP/SWP and local water intakes regardless of whether the tunnels are built. Also, in a major flood event, subsided land in the southern San Joaquin would likely fill and already compromised canal walls would probably collapse thwarting any attempt to transport water, even if it could be diverted.

I'm not sure how many bay area municipalities are dependent on water received through local intakes but I'd bet that most have more than one source of water. Most likely they draw fro a combination of surface and pumped groundwater or contract to receive water from EBMUD. EBMUD has several reservoirs (Camanche/Pardee) on the Mokelumne River watershed where it stores water. Also, EBMUD draws water from the Sacramento River at Freeport, transports it in the Folsom-South Canal to the mokelumne Canal for delivery in the East Bay. EBMUD, also, has reservoirs in the east bay hills (San Leandro/one other). San Francisco receives water from Hetch Hetchy, stores it 3 Crystal Springs reservoirs and I'm fairly sure the two districts sell/trade water to each other as needed.

But, let's see, if a major rain event happens every 200 years and the last one happened in 1862, we probably have 47 more years to worry about it, if at all. I've already addressed the earthquake concern in another post.

Re: DeSal installations. Not all DeSal installations cost $2,000.00 per ACF. There're several different types of desalinization technologies to choose from and at least one facility is producing water at substantially less than $2,000 per ACF. Check out the Cambria Pines facility. Also, the only reason water is so cheap when purchased from the CVP/SWP is that it's sold at substantially below it's actual market value. So, if you're buying water from a water contractor/district you're paying for it twice. Once in the form of costs of operation by the SWP/CVP and again from the contractor/district. That tends to distort the picture quite a bit. DeSal does tend to be labor intensive but, depending on the facility/type of DeSal technology used, brine by-product can be recycled or dispersed in ocean waters.

Ya know what, since you and I are not going reach agreement and rather than carry on this fruitless discussion any longer, I'll close by saying that the DWR sent a request to issue permits to BuRec/Core of Engineers a couple days ago. This while the comment period for the WaterFix (revised EIR/EIS) is still open. Can you say simultaneous review?? Seems like talking about this is over.

[Bob Loblaw]

The biggest threat to the delta is not the tunnels, its the delta itself. It is literally falling apart. You just have to drive on any levee top road to see that. Its also sinking and the "islands" are nothing more than bowls, some as many as 30 feet below the water levels. As soon as those levees collapse, and they will collapse unless there's someone out there with about $75 billion willing to rebuild them all, the islands will flood, one after another and sea water will rush in.

Its not a matter of if that will happen, its just a matter of when and how catastrophic will the eventual failure be. Everything that man builds eventually fails, especially stuff we build next to large bodies of water using dirt and sticks. The new conveyance will eventually fail to but it will last a lot longer than a dirt levee built 100 years ago by a Chinese farmer. It will also be engineered to withstand that 200 year flood event and a 500 year earthquake.

The question we need to be addressing is can we design and build a water conveyance system than can withstand that eventuality.

I still don't know what people mean when they say "restore the delta"? do they mean remove the levees? or build more and bigger levees? do they mean protecting farm land or marsh land? I think we can all agree that the delta need minimum flow guarantees but beyond that, there's no agreement on what restoring the delta actually means and without consensus and without a funding source to do these myriad projects, we'll all just end up fighting taking our turns at bat to have our say.,...and we all know mother nature bats last.

If the state water project is inundated with salt water, it will take an estimated 5 years to engineer a solution and it will decimate the bay area's economy, not just southern California. Doing nothing is not an option....and if you think that because you live north of the delta or in Sacramento that you'll be fine...think again. Where will you get your gas from? All the bay area refineries will have to close. Just one of the many problems a delta failure will produce.

[Rick.H]

This interesting topic is covered in the book "A Dangerous Place, California's Unsettling Fate" by Marc Reisner. Marc also wrote "Cadillac Desert" and "Game Wars". He was dying while he wrote ADP and what he had gotten done is lumped into 3 chapters. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the Delta and CA as a whole.

A big use of freshwater now is to keep salt water intrusion from impacting the pumps. In other words, as ocean levels rise, the brackish water extends further inland and must be held back by releasing fresh water; this will only require more fresh water over time. If/when the tunnels are built, this will not be a problem and the Delta can be allowed to go salt water.

[Bob Loblaw]

This is true and unfortunately its likely a trend that cannot be reversed. As sea levels rise and as our snowpack and resulting river flows decrease, saltwater intrusion into the delta will continue. Absent a barrier at the Golden Gate (which has been discussed) there's no way to hold back the tide.

If we refuse to accommodate our differences and allow gridlock to continue until mother nature forces us to act, the end solutions will be much more expensive and much more destructive to all concerned.