I found this on Dan Blanton's message board.....posted by Tony Buzolich.
https://nodeltagates.com/2018/01/10/...ibility-study/
https://nodeltagates.com/2018/10/31/...-forward-argh/
Printable View
I found this on Dan Blanton's message board.....posted by Tony Buzolich.
https://nodeltagates.com/2018/01/10/...ibility-study/
https://nodeltagates.com/2018/10/31/...-forward-argh/
Interesting perspectives on the project. Anything that's proposed in the Delta, even if it's to improve habitat for native fish, is a plot by the water exporters...Folks want to "Restore the Delta" just not in any way that affects anything they like about it. For example, don't restore it to a time before there were bass tournaments.
Aside from the possible elimination of weed load in Franks tract, I wouldn't be so quick to pronounce filling of the lake as restoration as that's no longer possible; nor do I believe this project is for the benefit of native fish. The staff of Water Resources Control Board has established that additional flows are necessary to accomplish that (a position that is opposed by DWR/water agencies).
I don't support filling of Franks as the fill material is going to be muck from the "Tunnels Project". Where else would they get the amount of material required to fill at the same time as tunneling will occur???. That muck will be dumped from barges and not likely be compacted when dumped. Potentially, tidal flow will transport some materials and make the water on each side of tides (incoming/outgoing) very muddy/turbid for quite a while.
The staff has recommended that, but many scientists disagree with their approach, not just water agencies. Even staff and the Board have admitted that part of their preference for flow is that it's the only measure over which they have regulatory authority. They can't order habitat restoration, predator control, etc. If your only tool is a hammer...every problem is a nail.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darian
I should add to my prior post SWRCB staff recommendations were for the San Joaquin River drainage and are conclusions based on the best available information/science. Not sure that your reference to "....many scientists disagree with their approach" is that weighty?? In this day/time, for any scientific findings, you can find a number of scientists who disagree with those findings.
The need for additional flows throughout the Delta is presented by SWRCB staff in their recommendation. Altho I don't have personal knowledge of the design/completion of the study that lead to staff recommendations, I'd be willing to bet that SWRCB has the authority to contract/consult with entities who can provide scientific input and uses it.
The problem with all of these projects is that they arise from the co-equal goals established (in law) under the Terminators administration. Justifying projects that appear to conflict with each other requires a lot of work by scientific/technical staff in differing agencies, many competing/conflicting with each other for approvals/resources. Each requiring massive EIRs/ESAs. For example, it's been reported that at last count, the EIR/ESA and amendments for the Waterfix Project now exceeds 90 thousand pages. Too many for any normal human being to write or read/digest without running into conflicting info.
Frankly, I'm of the opinion that all of the water agencies involved and DWR are pushing their own agendas. So, there's ample reason to be wary of any of the projects that are supposed to benefit the environment or "native fish." Hopefully, all of this will work out as planned but given past history (think Owens dry lake and High Speed Rail), I doubt it will.