Per. Can
I read the story in the Bee the other day and the long range goal is to have a "dual-conveyance" system-- one through the canal, the other through the Delta. This way they (say) can have more "flexibility" in managing the exports. Of couse the PC is going to be large enough to accomodate flood flows-- so much for those flushing flows that enhance downstream migration. And the way I look at it, unless you destroy the old conveyance system, they're gonna use both of them at the same time when the time comes.
Remember the "flood control" dam that Doolittle finally aggreed to?-- he wanted to make it "expandable"-- so he eventually could turn into a water storage facility.
How about when East Bay MUD wanted to pick up "clean" water at Nimbus-- they wanted to make the canal large enough to accomodate "flood flows". It's all double-talk to me and if they get a crack at building the infrastructure, they'll just change the rules when the thirst gets bad enough in So Cal and Central Valley. Like gasoline, when it's scarce enough, they'll sign off on off-shore drilling and ANWAR.
The scientists operate on science and principle-- the politicians pushing this agenda operate on smoke and mirrors.
When all else fails, put down the pole and swim with the dog.
Bookmarks