Restoring Franks Tract.......

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

https://wildlife.ca.gov/Science-Institute/News/restoring-franks-tract

[Darian]

Will approval of the restoration of Franks Tract be conditioned on the licensing/permitting of the "tunnels light" project?? Haven't heard whether this project is tied to Newsoms' single, larger tunnel project. Of course, if the tunnel is approved, Franks Tract would be a convenient place to dump tunnel muck for use in creating a salt marsh.... And, how does dumping tunnel muck in Franks eliminate invasive aquatic vegetation??

[OceanSunfish]

What is significant lacking is habitat that isn't a tide rushing rock-lined freeway.

I always thought that several islands could be used in rotation to assist with the habitat problem. For example, 30 year orchard/forrest grown within Webb, flood it for 20-30 years while another island is reclaimed and planted for another 20-30 year growth. Rotate the islands strategically around the Delta. 3 flooded, 3 more reclaimed.

When I helped out during the Prospect Island debacle, it was pretty apparent why there were so many fish and types of fish stuck inside that drained island.

Of course, there is no real honest interest in restoring fish or fish habitat by the elite on interested in diverting all water. Just thinking aloud......

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Sadly you just can't trust our government anymore to do what is right for the ecology or the people.

Once all the fish are gone there will be no more anglers to stand in their way of "progress".

[Mr T]

Sadly you just can't trust our government anymore to do what is right for the ecology or the people.

Once all the fish are gone there will be no more anglers to stand in their way of "progress".

I can’t help but feel that is the end game here. Death by a thousand cuts.

[Darian]

It certainly does seem that way at times. But, as we're all aware, the current form of the Delta is beyond restoration to its original shape in entirety. Franks Tract appears to be like a flooded/shallow corn field; a salt water marsh would be an appropriate change and create some benefit.

Delta Restoration was conditioned to approval of Waterfix and was to be funded by money from the General Fund. What is the source of funding for this new proposal??

As with Waterfix, there appears to be some potential differences/negatives for the Delta involved in Newsrooms' proposal. For example, it's been reported that the proposed single tunnel project includes a single 60' diameter tunnel (neither capacity or depth of the tunnel wasn't mentioned). The Waterfix project included 2 X 40' diameter (with a max capacity of 15 thousand acre feet per ??). These tunnels were supposed to be drilled at a depth of 150'. Only one of these tunnels was supposed to be in use at any time; the other for ease of access to the main tunnel for maintenance/repair. If one 40' diameter tunnel has a 15 thousand ACF capacity, what's the max capacity of one tunnel 60' in diameter?? Remember, Waterfix included continued, intermittent pumping direct from the Delta at the SWP pumps and I'll wager this one will, too. What is the source of funding for Newsoms' proposal??? User beneficiaries???

Another, related, bit of work worth scrutiny are the voluntary agreements that could lock in delivery of required volumes of water to be delivered to the south state.

These Voluntary Agreements and new, proposed project require close watch.

[Darian]

Negotiations for completion of Newsom's voluntary agreements continue. One part of which was a an offer by DWR that included some information worth noting. The offer includes a provision to produce 6,000 CFS water diverted instead of the original 3,000 CFS stated by Newsom for public consumption. Another is that costs would be covered by State Water Agencies (and didn't appear to include Westlands??).