Tunnels intakes....
Woodman,.... I've read the description of the screened intakes, too. Considering the fact that the comments made by contributors to this project are educated, have read the descriptions and, at least one, has done some comparative modeling to arrive at the conclusion that discussion of the potential for negative impact on recreational use is real and should've been included in the EIR but was not. Does that sound silly to you??? If so, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
As to the statement: "The diversions for the WaterFix project will be screened so that they have an entrance velocity that will not result in a Delta Smelt impinging on the screen", I find that statement difficult to accept. The designed maximum capacity of the two tunnels version is 15,000 CFS. The planned capacity to be diverted is 9,000 CFS. At my last reading, there were three planned intakes to be gravity fed that include a settling basin and pumps to move water to the current pumps at Tracy. So, regardless of where the pumps are located in this system, there will be increased flow to provide a continuous supply 9,000 CFS of water to the CVP/SWP. To me, that translates to a heavy current going through those screened intakes. Not an actual equivalent but if you've ever waded in a river at 3,000 CFS, it can exert some pressure on you. Just imagine what it could do to small fish impinged on the screens.
Now, I'm not an expert in the technical aspects of this but I suspect that you aren't either. So, what's wrong with making DWR/project staff study this and include results in the amended EIR??
"America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."
Author unknown
Bookmarks