Bay Delta
Conservation Plan
From: Frank Besso, Sacramento
Bee
Re "One shot to save the
Delta's ecology" (Forum, Dec. 1): How will diverting more than half of the
Sacramento River's Delta flow to Southern California help restore the wetland
habitat? The article says that today about 3 percent of marshes remain and 23
percent of seasonal wetlands remain.This being said, explain to me how removing
most of the river flow for Southern California is going to solve the wetlands
problem. Isn't the fact that we have already diverted a large portion of water
causing part of the existing issue? A report in your paper states an estimated
18,000 cubic feet per minute will be diverted in the two tunnels. It also noted
that the Sacramento River's flow is about the same. In this case, two plus two
doesn't equal four.
Coalition response... As noted in the original piece: "the Bay Delta Conservation Plan
includes the restoration of approximately 146,000 acres of habitat, including
65,000 acres of tidal wetlands. Most of the natural habitat of the Delta has
been lost or substantially altered, starting with the reclamation of Delta
marshland into agricultural land in the late 19th century."
It is important to remember that
many stressors affect the remaining Delta ecosystem, including invasive species,
predation, water pollution, and others. Finding a solution to these challenges
will benefit the entire state.
(Note- To read the original Dec.
1 piece: "The Delta, the plumbing and rectifying the problem" by
biologist Dennis McEwan, please click here.
From: Carol Rubin, Sacramento
Bee
Re "One shot to save Delta's
ecology" (Forum, Dec. 1): Dennis McEwan's opinion glosses over the
fundamental weakness of the ecological component of the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan: While the hardware has guaranteed funding by assessing consumers of the
water, funds for the ecological component must be raised by California voters
approving future bond measures. If these bond measures fail, California gets
the tunnels and the water diversion, but no ecological restoration. Bee staff
writer Matt Weiser's March 28 news story "Bay Delta Conservation Plan
documents reveal details, stir concerns" says, "The new plumbing is
estimated to cost $14 billion,... paid by farm and urban water ratepayers ...
via rate increases to repay bonds issued by DWR." The story also says the
plan calls for converting many Delta islands into restored wildlife habitat.
This is estimated to cost $4 billion, which the planners expect all California
taxpayers to fund, according to the article.?
Coalition response... Improving the Delta ecosystem is one of the co-equal goals
mandated by the State legislature in 2009. Improving natural habitat is a
public benefit, which is why elected officials made restoration activities in
the Delta part of the upcoming water bond. It is appropriate for all
Californians to share in costs that provide broad benefits that go far beyond
simply improving water supply reliability.
(Note- To read the original Dec.
1 piece: "The Delta, the plumbing and rectifying the problem" by
biologist Dennis McEwan, please click here.
From: Bill Kier, Sacramento Bee
Re "One shot to save Delta's
ecology" (Forum, Dec. 1): I've known Dennis McEwan as a state Fish and
Game biologist, not as a water policy pundit. I would have been stunned if he
had written this shout-out to the Delta "Chunnels" while at Fish and
Game. But now McEwan works for the promoters of the proposed twin-tunnel
project, the state Department of Water Resources. The Delta protection problem
is as it was with the Peripheral Canal 40 years ago. The state Water Resources
Control Board was created in the 1960s to establish, among other things, how
much freshwater through-flow is needed to protect Bay-Delta estuary resources.
The board has been politically restrained from doing its job. Building first
and finding out how badly it affects the estuary second was the problem with
the Peripheral Canal. Now it's the problem with the Chunnels.
Coalition response... It is a refreshing change to read the opinions of professionals with
the expertise of a fish biologist like Dennis McEwan. Protecting and improving
the Delta ecosystem is a responsibility we all share- the BDCP is a focused
effort to provide reliable water supplies, while working to improve the Delta
ecosystem.
(Note- To read the original Dec.
1 piece: "The Delta, the plumbing and rectifying the problem" by
biologist Dennis McEwan, please click here.
From: Rogene Reynolds, Sacramento
Bee
Re "One shot to save Delta's
ecology" (Forum, Dec. 1): Dennis McEwan's employer, the California
Department of Water Resources, has a lot invested in the Bay Delta Conservation
Plan. If the project is not permitted, not only will some positions have to be
reconstructed, but the Department of Water Resources will have to come up with
an alternative to tunnels. Unfortunately for the Delta, no such commitment to a
different solution exists at the department. It would be interesting to put
McEwan and Dr. Peter Gleick, whose opinion piece ran Nov. 6 in Forum, on the
same stage and have them debate their viewpoints. Pass the Kool-Aid, please ...
I'm confused, too.
Coalition response... The BDCP is a focused effort to provide reliable water supplies, while
working to improve the Delta ecosystem. Significant time and cost has been
committed to ensuring that the BDCP meets these goals.
(Note- To read the original Dec.
1 piece: "The Delta, the plumbing and rectifying the problem" by
biologist Dennis McEwan, please click here.
Bay Delta
Conservation Plan
From: Dale Creasey, Sacramento
Bee
Re "One shot to save Delta's
ecology" (Forum, Dec. 1): Too Bad Dennis McEwan did not apply his
expertise to changing the Peripheral Canal, so that it could produce an
abundant fishery by creating artificial breeding grounds along the canal. The
canal was much more versatile in that it could provide water in several
channels to augment Delta flows. The canal was proposed because it was
recognized that the Delta was being harmed by the current diversions. It would
have foreclosed any pumping out of the south Delta. But environmentalists
fought and won an alternative that is far worse.
(Note- To read the original Dec.
1 piece: "The Delta, the plumbing and rectifying the problem" by
biologist Dennis McEwan, please click here.
Water Bond
From: Staff, Redding
Record-Searchlight
To beef up the state's water
supply, we need chain saws as much as dams.
That was one of the unexpected
takeaways from Wednesday's legislative hearing in Redding on a possible new
state water bond.
Arranged to share North State
perspectives on water needs with lawmakers from elsewhere, the hearing
naturally included boosters of Sites Reservoir, a proposal to store Sacramento
River water in a bowl in the hills of western Colusa County. If it lives up to
its promise, the new reservoir would store additional winter runoff, add
flexibility to the overworked Sacramento Valley water system, and without
building a new dam that blocks the flow of a major river or creating nearly the
disruption and controversy of a larger Lake Shasta.
Meetings
From: Staff, caii.org
What is the future of the
water-energy relationship? Can a balance on water use efficiency and energy use
be found? Come engage with other water and power professionals as we
explore the future of water and energy efficiency at the 52nd Annual California
Irrigation Institute Conference!
Thursday & Friday, Jan.
23-24, 2014
Sacramento Arden West Hilton
2200 Harvard Street, Sacramento
From: Ian James, mydesert.com
Golf courses and farms are big
water users in the Coachella Valley. What steps are they taking to conserve
water? And how can golf courses and farms lessen their water footprints in the
future to help prevent declines in groundwater levels?
Tuesday, Dec. 10, 6 p.m.
Indio Senior Center
45-700 Aladdin St, Indio
Admission: Free
No comments:
Post a Comment