State of California BUSTED by the Feds for misappropriation of funds... Delta Tunnels

[STEELIES/26c3]

http://fishsniffer.com/index.php/2016/04/11/1614/

[Mr T]

Why am I not the least bit surprised

[Darian]

to buy all or part of 5 islands in Delta according to the SacBee:

http://sacb.ee/5Zn0

[James W]

Ok hold on now, deep breath.
The Department of the Interior has agreed to LOOK INTO the allegations sent to them by a private advocacy group, nothing more.
That's simply following legal protocol.
Nothing has been proven, only alleged. No one has been busted.
PEER is just a private advocacy group making yet another set of allegations to pile on top of the ones they sent in last year which were already being investigated.

The purchase of five islands in the delta by Metropolitan Water District is unrelated. It's entirely possible MWD's claim that they intend to use them for delta habitat improvements that would help ameliorate the effects of delta water pumping is true, we don't know. After all $175 million is a drop in the bucket for them. The previous owners plan was to flood them all and ship the water south during periods of high demand . . . this can't be any worse.

[Darian]

No outrage/panic involved. Providing links to articles in publications doesn't seem to give me need to step back and take a deep breath. Maybe it's just the emotionally charged atmosphere of an election year....

There's a bit more to the first article than a complaint by a private advocacy group. While it's true that the complaint contains an unproven allegation(s), it's reported to be based on a charge by an inside whistleblower. Given past history of how government deals with whistleblowers, this instance has an element credibility.

The second article describes a purchase of land along the route of the proposed WaterFix Project in the Delta that would reduce or eliminate some barriers to initiation and completion of that project for the state. While both actions are separate, they're still related in my view. One deals with funding for the project, the other deals with acquisition of property for the project. Given that past history of how water agencies/districts have acquired land in other areas to influence water decisions (think Owens Valley for just one instance) it seems to me that we may be on the first step to that same outcome for the Delta. Why else would the largest water district in this state (located 400 miles to the south, BTW) buy land there; to enhance the Delta??? Not holding my breath. Just a thought....

[lee s.]

Darian,
Are you maybe hinting that maybe the shareholders of the Metropolitan Water District are really not interested in conservation measures in a body of water 400 miles away? Hmmmm. I just might be a bit inclined to agree. Here comes ANOTHER Russian River!
.....lee s.

[Mark V]

Thank you Steelies and Darian for your vigilance on posting these news stories. Recently finished reading Marc Reisner's "Cadillac Desert" about the history of water projects throughout the arid western states. He documents so many instances where the CA & Fed agencies blatantly broke laws to mispend taxpayer money and give away more and more pennies-on-the-dollar-subsidized water to Ag biz, this sure looks familiar.

Came to this section of the board today to post about a slick new video commercial I saw stuck in front of this Youtube video: link

Seems like a polished attempt to sell the proposed delta tunnels. Have you seen this?

Don't know if you'll draw the same commercial if you go to watch that video the first time, but the website is: www.californiawaterfix.com (Website's pretty slick too)

Skeptical that it's just a gimmick to saddle taxpayers with many billions more cost and/or debt, in order to export more water From: the delta, To: farmers & L.A.

Of course there's no transcript of this video pitch, but the commercial made it seem like the project's only intent is to capture more spring rain water runoff, 'storing' it in tunnels under the delta? While mitigating the problems caused by the existing State & Fed pump stations?

They don't give any straight numbers of how many Acre-feet of water runoff will be gained per year, and what exactly is the total cost for the proposed project.

Also, on their website there's a link to the MARCH 25, 2016 - CALIFORNIA WATERFIX AQUATIC SCIENCE PEER REVIEW, but the link doesn't give you the details of what was discussed, it's only a 3 page summary of the minutes.

RE: the "waterfix" folks & their plan: What is is their real goal? Will it improve the ecosystem in the delta by much if at all? How much will it really cost? Will it help save or recover spring water runoff that would otherwise be flushed out the bay? If so how much water will be avail for consumption, and where will it go?

Thanks, Mark