Coalition of....

[Darian]

Good typo....

[Darian]

After reading it, whats to like or dislike??? Typically, lots of grandstanding included. I kinda feel like it's little more than a plan to plan.

The paper has some features that differ from the BDCP but, all in all suggests expanding conservation efforts and storage (more and higher dams/reservoirs), expansion of groundwater storage and water recycling, etc. Aside from the construction of new dams (maybe those will be necessary), who could argue with the suggestions?? Garamandi says he wants to bring all of the stakeholders together, implying that his idea is unique but that was what was proposed during the crafting of the current version of the BDCP. Maybe the flow/pumping concept Garamendi suggests will work out but it remains to be seen whether his plan to plan will be adopted as he describes it.

It's worth watching but I'm not holding my breath given the currently dysfunctional House of Representatives. I am curious about why Garamendi's (6th Congressional District) and Matsui's (3rd district) seem to have a serious geographic overlap problem.

[Darian]

"I haven't seen one word opposing the tunnels on this site, and that is fine if you support them. But if you don't, and your silence is bought and paid for by some political allegiance, then re- thinking those politics might be in order."

There're plenty of statements about the BDCP on this BB. Both, negative and positive. Some are in older posts/threads before you became a participant. Check 'em out in the archives.

The SacBee, like most news media, report whatever info they've been given by DWR on this subject. In the latest release of a section of the BDCP, there was mention of the need to relocate sections of hwy 160 that would cross over the construction area of the intakes until they're completed. Then Hwy 160 is to be moved back to it's original course which would pass right over the top of the intakes next to the river. To me, it's a bit more disturbing that a large forebay will be constructed near Walnut Grove to facilitate the intake of water from the river. Lots of productive farm land will be lost to that. Difficult to keep anything like that from public visibility.

According to one of the latest articles in the SacBee, DWR's director clearly stated that the state was legally authorized to initiate/construct the project without a vote and cited two former acts (unfortunately, I didn't write the cites down) to support that claim. So, it seems to me that the only things that could change that would be an initiative to force a vote or the legislature stepping in to legislate a change. Of course, loss of funding would be tough to overcome.

The article, also, mentioned that DWR would issue bonds to cover some of the costs. I wasn't aware that a state agency could issue bonds on it's own initiative. Doesn't the Treasurers Office have to issue and oversee state bonds???

[bchris964]

Very knowledgeable research and forum. I read 3 or 4 thread and find this work amazing.
Human life is more important.The people living around any river might be at risk if the levees
are not built properly by the owners.So its construction is very important.