More Tunnels Issues....

**Darian** · 11-25-2018, 12:31 PM

Not sure if anyone here reads the SN&R but it's a local, alternative newspaper that has some good local articles in it. The link is to an article about a recent drowning in the Delta that raised some issues with the Waterfix project that have been dismissed by DWR, et. al., concerning the safety of recreational use by people/boaters near the gravity/pump fed intakes on the Sacramento River, among others.

https://www.newsreview.com/sacrament...t?oid=27378229

Unaddressed concerns about this grandiose project just keep piling up....

**Woodman** · 11-25-2018, 06:43 PM

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. Not much risk to a water skier unless he crashes into it. Juxtaposing this tragedy with the WaterFix diversions just makes the opponents look silly.

**Darian** · 11-25-2018, 11:24 PM

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??

**McFish** · 11-26-2018, 10:19 AM

Darian; I agree; these are supposed to be professional studies; but they do not seem to address basic physical parameters. The biggest question I have is how big are these 3 intakes? If one intake is pulling 3,000 cfs and is a 10 foot diameter hole; that's a hell of a current. Current flow of Feather at Boyd's Landing is 2900 cfs. So if entire Feather is falling through a 10 ft diameter hole, could you swim away? How about striper, bass/or trout smolts?

**Woodman** · 11-26-2018, 11:08 AM

I actually know a little about this...

3000 cfs through a "ten foot diameter hole" would definitely be a problem. The diversions will be many hundreds of feet long, with screen openings of a small fraction of an inch.

The screens at the City of Sacramento intake and the Freeport intake are similarly designed (though much smaller) and I have not heard any reports of swimmers or skiers being sucked to their death.

Admittedly, there is always the potential for additional studies, but that is not what the opponents want. No amount of study would convince them that this project should go forward.

What's the end game? Should southern California not have a reliable water supply? What's the impact on the state's (and Sacramento's) economy from that? Should Californians continue to pay to maintain levees for farmers whose land has sunk 25 feet below sea level? Should we maintain a striped bass fishery that is predatory on native fish that are protected under the endangered species act? It's more complex than just mining for every possible reason why the tunnels are bad.

**McFish** · 11-26-2018, 12:39 PM

Woodman; thanks for the clarifications. It is your last paragraph about end games that , I believe, worries most of us. Why should S Ca get so much of our water? They already divert so much that all our fisheries are a fraction of what they were in the 1960's. Does the owner of a patch of desert outside of Bakersfield have the right to grow almonds? I'm not wild about paying for levee protection, either. And if native species protection is to be a touchstone, then get steelhead/salmon back to at least 1960 levels before sending more water to S Ca. JMHO

**Woodman** · 11-26-2018, 01:29 PM

Originally Posted by McFish

Woodman; thanks for the clarifications. It is your last paragraph about end games that , I believe, worries most of us. Why should S Ca get so much of our water? They already divert so much that all our fisheries are a fraction of what they were in the 1960's. Does the owner of a patch of desert outside of Bakersfield have the right to grow almonds? I'm not wild about paying for levee protection, either. And if native species protection is to be a touchstone, then get steelhead/salmon back to at least 1960 levels before sending more water to S Ca. JMHO

More good questions...If you've got a water right and a private property right, then yes you can grow whatever you want. Are counties restricting land use for almonds? Does the state want to buy out almond farmers? Buy water rights for fish? We as California citizens need to define our priorities and develop balanced solutions. My only point is that Delta Tunnel opponents aren't really looking for answers to their questions...they're just building the administrative record for lawsuits to try to stop any project. Finding scientists to dispute minute details of an EIR isn't a heavy lift. The status quo isn't very good, nor sustainable, for any Delta interests. Everyone wants 100% of what they desire in the Delta, but without a continued reliable water supply, it's very unlikely the state invests the money needed for habitat. The tunnels provide the opportunity for significant benefits to both water supply and fish...although it's legitimate to be wary of how they will be operated.

I know my view isn't popular on a fly fishing forum, but I spend my time in both the fly fishing and water supply worlds. Both sides need to think a little outside the box. Just like everything else in our society, people just want to hear things that support their existing view. If you get your info from the News and Review and the Fish Sniffer, your understanding of the Delta Tunnels is limited.

**Darian** · 11-26-2018, 07:56 PM

Woodman,.... This is becoming a lengthy discussion. Your point about almond growers in the Southern San Joaquin should apply to Delta growers. Each has legal/water rights but San Joaquin growers have the access to ground to pump for irrigating their crops; not the same in the Delta. Also, it's been widely reported that under the current pattern of use (diversion/storage/distribution), growers in the San Joaquin Valley acquire/purchase approximately 80% to 85% of all water sent south from the CVP/SWP pumps.

As to levees, it's my understanding that many levees in the Delta are in private, not public, ownership (unless things have changed since 1997). The public doesn't pay for maintaining those levees and, concerning land subsidence, does 25 feet of subsidence in some Delta islands compare 115 feet of subsidence in the Southern San Joaquin Valley where ground water pumping has depleted aquifers to the point that bridges/canals in that area are becoming useless unless replaced (at public expense)??

Frankly, being in the water supply business, I understand that you would see opponents to this project seeking their own economic/engineers/environmental advocates to provide self serving counterpoints as I see DWR/LAMWD staff doing the same thing or do you think that water contractors or state agencies are all motivated by altruism?? This project has been politicized to the point that project staff/contributors ignore situations or information that should be evaluated/included in the amended EIR/EIS.

The crux of all of this is that somehow the Waterfix Project includes "....opportunity for significant improvement to both water supply and fish...." I just can't accept that premise.

I'm a bit surprised that you would be so dismissive of the information in the article cited from SN&R. I've done extensive reading and commenting on water issues over the last 10 years (on this Forum) and have adopted the approach that good information can come from many sources, sometimes unexpected sources but your dismissal illustrates my point that supporters of Waterfix are just as guilty of trying to discredit those sources as proponents.