It's beginning to look like we may have a different Delta this Fall..

[Mike McKenzie]

The word from Bradford Island is that DWR is getting ready to put in the West False River barrier, despite what someone from DWR told someone from the Delta. ("We have assessed water supplies and demands. Based on this assessment, the emergency drought barriers will not be needed this year.")

Reports are that reclamation districts in the vicinity of False River have been told by DWR that their levees have to be improved to be ready to accept the barriers as of July 15, 2014.

DWR's website is still announcing that the Emergency Drought Barriers have been cancelled for 2014.

We'll just take this opportunity to add that this is the kind of confusion we can expect from BDCP with regard to "real time operations" of the Twin Tunnels. The left hand will never know exactly what the right hand is doing.

Read our entire newsletter here:
http://restorethedelta.org/news-from...a-june-5-2014/

I hope this ain't true but what's that old song?, "We've only Just begun"...?? Don't we just love that the lunatics run the asylum known as our state government

Mike

[Darian]

Thanks for the info Mike. In addition to the info you provided, the EIR/EIS doesn't appear to address the changing water situation in the Sacramento River with regard to sales of re-cycled.treated water from sanitation facilities (e.g. Sacramento Regional Sanitation District). Currently, all water diverted by municipal/regional water districts is normally used, treated and returned to a waterway. With the advent of a potential new standard for renewal of operation permits, water districts must try to recoup some of the costs of upgraded treatment by selling up to 100%, as in the case of Sacto, of the treated solids/water for AG use. This amounts to a complete loss of the water that would/should be returned to the waterway. The result of this situation is a reduced flow into the Delta from the Sacramento River. Now, add to that loss, daily diversion of the proposed 9,000 CFS with the capacity to pump 15,000 CFS if necessary from the Delta/Sacramento by the tunnels and you can see that the result will be greater salt water intrusion into the Delta. Also, in points raised by ycflyfisher in the Conservation Forum, what if each sanitation district upriver from Sacramento is required to upgrade their systems, requiring offsetting some of the costs by selling all of their treated water resulting in increased loss of water formerly returned to the river?? Also, take into account that the proposed Sites reservoir is off-line requiring diversion to fill as t lacks a source of in-flowing streams. It was not apparent that the requirements of the new standards for sewage treatment permits or the potential sale of recycled water was considered in any of the EIR/EIS documents I read.

A document made up of 34,000 pages (e.g. BDCP) and related documents isn't dynamic even tho the environment being assessed is. No mention of who's required to re-pay what amount?? No worries. The AG contractors still haven't repaid millions to the feds for cost of projects they agreed to repay. Don't get me started on the cost vs benefit of this $$$$$$$$ loser.

For almost every reason that I've read and thought about, this project is the wrong one at the wrong time.

[SeanO]

Thanks for keeping this on the "front page", guys. I learn lots from you here.

Best,

[Mike McKenzie]

Also, take into account that the proposed Sites reservoir is off-line requiring diversion to fill as t lacks a source of in-flowing streams. It was not apparent that the requirements of the new standards for sewage treatment permits or the potential sale of recycled water was considered in any of the EIR/EIS documents I read.
The AG contractors still haven't repaid millions to the feds for cost of projects they agreed to repay. Don't get me started on the cost vs benefit of this $$$$$$$$ loser.

For almost every reason that I've read and thought about, this project is the wrong one at the wrong time.

However, one of the biggest threats to the survival our anadromous fisheries is the Sites Reservoir proposal. If built, it would create a huge "water heater" for the Sacramento River. While the Sites Dam would be placed in probably one of the last usable "gun-sight" locations (which are most loved by Dam builders) Its reservoir would occupy a huge, extended very shallow valley. Their theory of operating it as an off river storage reservoir, which means filling it during periods of "high run off" (winter,spring) then draw it down for summer fall irrigation and M&I use, would in effect, create a much warmer Sacramento River, probably too warm for any out migrating salmonids. It would also steal necessary outflows to the SF Bay estuary that push back saltwater intrusion into the Delta exacerbating an already existing problem.

All this just to satisfy a few Corporate Ag. "farmers" who've planted 700,000+ acres of almond, Pistachio and pomegranate trees over the last 20+ years in a place they can't irrigate with local water. These same folks scream about how they're "feeding America" but in reality they are shipping our water to China in the form of Almonds and such....

Mike

[OceanSunfish]

Thanks as well.

[STEELIES/26c3]

All this just to satisfy a few Corporate Ag. "farmers" who've planted 700,000+ acres of almond, Pistachio and pomegranate trees over the last 20+ years in a place they can't irrigate with local water. These same folks scream about how they're "feeding America" but in reality they are shipping our water to China in the form of Almonds and such....

Don't forget the ALL ESSENTIAL pomegranates...

!!BOYCOTT POM JUICE!!

[ycflyfisher]

However, one of the biggest threats to the survival our anadromous fisheries is the Sites Reservoir proposal. If built, it would create a huge "water heater" for the Sacramento River. While the Sites Dam would be placed in probably one of the last usable "gun-sight" locations (which are most loved by Dam builders) Its reservoir would occupy a huge, extended very shallow valley. Their theory of operating it as an off river storage reservoir, which means filling it during periods of "high run off" (winter,spring) then draw it down for summer fall irrigation and M&I use, would in effect, create a much warmer Sacramento River, probably too warm for any out migrating salmonids. It would also steal necessary outflows to the SF Bay estuary that push back saltwater intrusion into the Delta exacerbating an already existing problem.

All this just to satisfy a few Corporate Ag. "farmers" who've planted 700,000+ acres of almond, Pistachio and pomegranate trees over the last 20+ years in a place they can't irrigate with local water. These same folks scream about how they're "feeding America" but in reality they are shipping our water to China in the form of Almonds and such....

Mike

Mike, Where do you get this stuff from? How exactly do you arrive at these opinions? I'd definitely like to see some references for these wild and biased opinions of yours for a change.

[John Sv]

Curious, not trolling...
If Sites had a bottom release, could it be a Sac river cooler instead of heater?
Thanks

[Darian]

I haven't seen the design drawings on the proposed off-line Sites Reservoir but from what I have read, it's located in a bowl shaped valley that has few if any natural streams for water sources. Can't say how deep the reservoir will be but, apparently, it has some natural drainage as DWR proposes to construct a dam at the low end of the valley to create storage (similar to San Luis Reservoir).

The project requires constructing an intake/outflow pumping station to fill the reservoir. These pumps require power to run them but this might be at least partially self sufficient similar to how water is pumped into and thru the aqueduct systems (maybe through use of solar power to draw water from the Sacramento River for fill operations or generation from water driven turbines when water is withdrawn??). I couldn't tell from what I've read or seen in drawings but it seems that the outflow valves would have to be low on the face of the dam or on the bottom of the reservoir in order to get the most volume of water out of the reservoir.

It was reported by news media and mentioned in some talks by Garamendi and a couple of other local pols that operation of the reservoir would require maximum in-flow pumping during periods of high water and minimal pumping for inflow during low water periods. Out-flow pumping is proposed to occur on demand.

I don't have anything concrete to support this but it does seem that this reservoir will be deep enough to stratify during the summer/winter months and turnover in the fall/spring. If it's a relatively shallow body of water, stratification may not be pronounced and might be warm. On the other hand, in a wet year it could be colder. Anybody's guess for now. Time to go back to the DWR website to see if there's anything new on this....

[Tony Buzolich]

Mike,

The mention of Sites acting as a "large water heater" just got me to thinking about the Afterbay on the Feather River at Thermolito. Wasn't that built with the intention of helping the rice growers with warmer water to aide in their crops? It seems to be working for them.

But at the same time hasn't it also raised the water temperature in the Feather River below the outlet? I'm sure this hasn't aided the salmon migration as they seek out cooler water to spawn.

When I used to guide that part of the river it was not uncommon to come across many salmon that looked perfectly fine but lay dead in the shallows. The water was always warm during the late summer and early fall. When asked about these dead fish at the hatchery it was always said that they had a gill disease related to the warm water. The water last week was 71 degrees. Not too good for fish looking for cooler temps.
Tony