Didn't Take 'em Long...

[Darian]

To propose/pass federal legislation that contains a rider by Feinstein which will allow increased pumping from the Delta. Passage was reported in today's SacBee. Check out the link:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article121428557.html

[JayDubP]

Feinstein's rider just assures that her cronies the Kern Water Bank (Stuart Resnick & Tejon Ranch) remain the biggest re-seller of water.

Just because the water is for Central Valley water buyers does not mean it will be used in agriculture. I will bet a huge chunk will be re-sold and used by urban consumers.

[Darian]

Water as a cash crop.... Do you suppose that this change will make the cost of the Waterfix Project (tunnels) less attractive to growers??

From another perspective, maybe all that water will be used by AG after all (sold to marijuana growers). :rolleyes:

[OceanSunfish]

I can no longer take the time to write all that is horrendously wrong with this entire process....... I'll sum it up: CORRUPT. Or "We the People".... no longer matter.

What's next? Rewrite the Constitution to read...... "We the Lobbyist....." Or "We the Elite Group of People "can pick and choose which laws to obey and ignore all others until we get them overturned..... (CVIPA)

[Darian]

"Do you suppose that this change will make the cost of the Waterfix Project (tunnels) less attractive to growers??"

In answer to my question (above), I guess Waterfix is still moving. I received notice from DWR that the final EIR/EIS have been completed and will be available for review on 12/22/16, on-line at:

WWW. BayDeltaConservationPlan.com

I don't know about anyone else but I'm not going to try to read a document as voluminous as this one on-line.

[OceanSunfish]

"Do you suppose that this change will make the cost of the Waterfix Project (tunnels) less attractive to growers??"

In answer to my question (above), I guess Waterfix is still moving. I received notice from DWR that the final EIR/EIS have been completed and will be available for review on 12/22/16, on-line at:

WWW. BayDeltaConservationPlan.com

I don't know about anyone else but I'm not going to try to read a document as voluminous as this one on-line.

C'mon...... it's only 90,000 pages! ;)

[Darian]

My eyes haven't recovered from the last version and I didn't read all of that one.... ;) Given the size of this document, I guess DWR and our governor believe that nobody will read it and the state will win by attrition.

BTW, something that I hadn't paid much attention to in the original reading was who was going to approve the EIR/EIS. It seems that DWR (primary drafter of the document) will approve it's own choice. So, looks like reviewers read/comment and DWR, once again, ignores them and approves the document. So, much for independent review.

Given the recent passage of federal law requiring additional pumping (regardless of Waterfix), I wonder if water contractors are still going to see this project as cost effective???

[OceanSunfish]

Apparently I errored, the report is 97,000 pages.......

Would you please clarify the approval process again. Thanks.

[Darian]

The approval I mentioned was highly summarized. From everything I've read, DWR/BuRec are primary contributors to the draft documents. BuRec is not supposed to be part of the final approval process for the EIR/EIS but DWR is. After issuance, a period of time is required for review/comment. Barring any "deal breaker" issues being raised by commenters, any minor changes are completed and the documents are approved/issued. Again, this is summarized.

My remark about DWR ignoring the comments was sarcasm but not from from fact. When the original EIR/EIS was issued, the major criticism was the lack of any real consideration of viable alternatives to the twin tunnels and, if you noticed, the choice is still twin tunnels. I heard on CAP Radio today that there were 16-18 alternatives considered this time. It'll be interesting to see what those alternatives are and how they were vetted.

IMO, two questions that I've never seen addressed are 1) what happens if the AG water contractors don't repay the debt created by the project?? Given the record of Westlands failure to repay debt to the feds, recently settled by the Feds/Westlands, how will that debt be guaranteed??? DWR staff told me that ratepayers are the guarantee but since growers are frequently board members of water districts why would they bill themselves??? My bet, after default, it's going to be the taxpayers.

2) What's to keep the CVP/SWP from diverting/transporting in both tunnels, simultaneously??? Scarier, yet is what's to keep them from pumping at the stations in south Delta as well??? The stated intent for design of the tunnels has been one for diversion/transport and the second as standby to use in case repairs are needed for maintenance/repair of the primary tunnel (allows repairs in a dry tunnel). If recall correctly, the design capacity of each tunnel is 15,000 CFS but the proposed operational plan calls for a maximum of 9,000 CFS to be pumped. One of the features of this plan is that the pumps in the south Delta will still be operational and in use during specified periods. Now, I'm not saying it will be done but if the owners want to they could conceivably divert/transport 30,000 cfs thru the tunnels and whatever's left from the Delta thru the pumps. That's why so many people think that this project could, thru pumping, turn the entire Delta into a salt marsh. Remember, operational plans can/do change over time.

I know, I'm really cynical but it's not as impossible as it sounds if you consider what has already been done to Calfornias' water resources. We've dried up Owens Lake, Tulare Lake, dried up sections of the Colorado and San Joaquin Rivers; all major water resources . All to service water contractors.....

[OceanSunfish]

Thanks Darian.

I've been busy with the Holidays/Family. I'll provide further comment when time allows.

[John Sv]

Question:
With all of the water exported south, don't we kinda keep the delta artificially fresh now? Specifically speaking to salmonids, does a saltier delta hurt smolts or can they still use it before heading out?
Thanks

[Darian]

"Question:
With all of the water exported south, don't we kinda keep the delta artificially fresh now? Specifically speaking to salmonids, does a saltier delta hurt smolts or can they still use it before heading out?"

John,.... I'm not sure what keeping the Delta fresh means(??) I guess you could say that fresh water outflow or salt water intrusion freshens the Delta?? At times, when in-river flows are high and tidal activity is low, fresh water pushes the salt water back and when tidal activity is high and in-river flows are low, salt water intrusion occurs. This is overly simplified.

Now comes the artificial part. Add into the equation dams on the San Joaquin River and all of it's tributaries (save one) reducing in-river flows to the point where sections of the San Joaquin run dry during parts of the year and dams on the Sacramento River and it's tributaries each controlling releases into the system, you get artificially median flows over the course of a year (unless drought conditions impact that flow regime as they have recently). All of this creates un-natural in-river flows.

Now add in the CVP/SWP pumps at Tracy. These pumps are so powerful that when they are in operation at capacity, can reverse in-Delta outflows from their natural route. This impacts/confuses the route that migrating Salmon choose to follow into their natal rivers/streams. In the case of the San Joaquin flows are non-existent at critical times blocking migration altogether or polluted with AG insecticides/pesticides when water is available. The current hearings by the State Water Resources Control Board is about increasing flows to address this problem. For other fish species this artificial changing/mixing impacts the spawning habitat of fish like the Delta Smelt and other Delta species. Then there's the problem of predation (big fish eating little fish, etc.) and pelagic organism decline. I'm not even going to try to address the anticipated impact of the proposed Waterfix (tunnels) Project....

This really doesn't answer your question about whether smolts being impacted by a saltier Delta but it's not entirely about whether Salmonids are impacted, to me. It's about whether any/all species (communities, farmers, fish or animal) who live in the Delta are impacted negatively.

All of this stuff should be discussed by someone/organization with more knowledge on the subject than me.

[John Sv]

Thanks for the clarification. I just figured that with the water deliveries occurring for at interest in the late summer, the area around the pumps and the San Joaquin side in general might actually be less salty in summer and fall than was historic. Sounds like that speculation is incorrect.

[Darian]

Well,.... Seems like you're correct about the water around the pumps. Before the dams, flows were very low in the late summer/fall. High flows in winter/spring. After the dams were built, water was diverted, stored and released (managed) for uniform distribution. Ideally, pumping should be carried out when flows are high (in winter) and decrease in volume when flows are low but if allocations are honored, is done year round. Regardless of the time of year, when water is being pumped at CVP/SWP, water near the pumps is less likely to contain saltwater.

IMO, the problem is that pumping alters flow patterns for the entire Delta, bringing in pollution from municipalities, AG activities and saltwater in to areas that don't normally see high levels of contaminants. If tides are high when the pumps are running, it probably requires increased releases from dams to offset the tidal surge. So, it seems that the Delta is a complex system....