WaterFix Letter

[Darian]

I received an E-mail from WaterFix that highlights the contents of an Op-Ed piece by Secretary Laird, DWR, to San Diego media asserting the value of the project to water supplies in the San Diego area. For the most part, contents of this piece are boilerplate but in the midst of the article was a lone paragraph that, also appeared in the justification section of the EIR/EIS for the project:

"Experts agree that without WaterFix, that investment could become a stranded asset. The effects of climate change combined with tightened environmental regulations could make it impossible to operate the existing infrastructure much of the time." This statement refers to the CVP/SWP pumps in the south Delta and is made in recognition of the need to protect the pumps from potential sea level rise.

Since this paragraph stands alone in each document and is almost an exact repeat of itself I believe it is the primary reason that the governor/state has to justify the WaterFix project.

In the WaterFix description, the CVP/SWP pumps would be protected from sea level rise by improving/raising the protective berms/levees high enough to protect the pumps. Seems to me that improving/raising the level off those berms/levees could be done without the WaterFix. So, why does DWR continue to use this as a a high priority justification for the project???

Another concern is that land subsidence due to groundwater pumping is beginning to impact the system of canals and waterways in the San Joaquin valley; some so bad that the underside of bridges are beginning to touch the surface of water in the canals running underneath them. Under proposed operational plans in Waterfix, growers would not receive any additional water by way of the project. So, does anyone really believe that pumping of groundwater won't continue up to the maximum allowed under incoming rules/regulations??? That being the case, Won't we be facing a new project to pay for the repair of canals in the future, as well as WaterFix???

Frankly, I can't accept that DWR/growers haven't already considered all of this but don't want to address all of it at one time as the cost of doing both at the same time should prove to be prohibitive and unacceptable politically....

[OceanSunfish]

I agree. No appetite to see the global price tag for the entire 'project'. This project has been nothing but a 'backroom' deal from the get-go.

[Darian]

Restore The Delta reported that Westlands and other water districts have voted "no" on participating in the WaterFix project. It doesn't kill the project entirely but does slow it's momentum a great deal. The main reason for the "no" vote was the excessive cost of the project without the prospect of increased benefits.

However, in another article from Restore The Delta, Associated Press reported that the state is attempting to broaden the base of who will pay for the tunnels to all but far northern water districts. That's quite a change from the earlier promise that only those who benefit would pay. You can read the article at the link:

https://apnews.com/712b5954fa3a4b4e9...for-water-plan