Tunnel Vision....

[Darian]

Follow the link to an interesting article in a local newspaper about Waterfix (Delta tunnels project:

https://www.newsreview.com/sacrament...t?oid=24640717

Has some interesting comments in it by Dr. Peter Moyle. Apparently, he is a supporter of completing the project but his views are opposed by others in the article. Good read....

[STEELIES/26c3]

Interesting read... and yes we are all sometimes guilty of 'tunnel vision' or seeing through our own filters. I have indeed, looked at the potential merits of the tunnels and there are some.

HOWEVER... and it was the caveat DR. Moyle mentioned... I DO NOT TRUST DWR, BOR, MWD, WESTLANDS, AND THE OTHER 4 DISTRICTS involved NOR NMFS, CDFG/W to NOT take more water from the delta... History has shown they cannot be trusted to manage water in a way commensurate with promises and healthy fisheries.

[tascaso]

Bottom line is correct, these districts cannot be trusted to prevent the destruction of the Delta. Their first priority is to deliver water to an ever growing and expanding SoCal, and to their contracted Ag customers, plus the water brokering and banking that is going on to the detriment of the environment.

[Woodman]

Interesting read... and yes we are all sometimes guilty of 'tunnel vision' or seeing through our own filters. I have indeed, looked at the potential merits of the tunnels and there are some.

HOWEVER... and it was the caveat DR. Moyle mentioned... I DO NOT TRUST DWR, BOR, MWD, WESTLANDS, AND THE OTHER 4 DISTRICTS involved NOR NMFS, CDFG/W to NOT take more water from the delta... History has shown they cannot be trusted to manage water in a way commensurate with promises and healthy fisheries.

But if they could just take all the water they want...why spend billions for a new way to take it. That argument is a little weak.

[Darian]

"....if they could just take all the water they want...why spend billions for a new way to take it. That argument is a little weak."

Maybe..., taken by itself. However, there're just too many watchdogs and regulations for them to take what they want without consequence.

The comment by Moyle and many others, including myself, is about the outright greed involved in dealings with the growers/water contractors and the mistrust coming out of that. One example is the thought that they intend to invest $17 billion on the project. They, growers/water contractors, still have to vote on approving that amount. Even if they do approve, they're only approving payment of constructing the project not cost overruns and/or bond service. Many, not all, of the water contractors have a history of not honoring those promises (no evidence of any contracts involved between the state and the other side, yet). If the debt is not re-paid, we're on the hook.

Another example is the operational plan calling for a maximum intake of 9,000 CFS, yet, the design capacity of the two tunnels is 15,000 CFS. Redundancy/maintenance being the stated reasons for the second tunnel (drain one while maintaining one). Why construct a second tunnel of equal length/size for use during a limited period of time unless the real purpose is to run both at full capacity?? After all, it's not much of a loss of volume to shut one down for that same, limited period. Remember, the limits in the plan can change to expand intake volumes at any time. Not to mention the fact that the operational plan calls for the CVP/SWP pumps at Tracy continue to pull water from the Delta at times....

This subject has been ongoing for some time and there are just too many reasons to list here that should give everyone some concerns about why a document that's now over 50,000 pages long can't provide better answers. Whenever I start reading/thinking about this stuff, I'm reminded of an old saying, "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bull shit."