PDA

View Full Version : Delta Blue Ribbon Task Force Releases Report



chiselchest
12-19-2007, 03:41 AM
Long awaited report here.

Haven't had much of a chance to study this, but I sense they favor a canal...they are very general.

http://www.deltavision.ca.gov/

Yaker
12-19-2007, 06:45 AM
I just read the (lengthy) summary and have no idea what the hell they are saying. The first half makes it sound like no canal, but towards the end talks about a committee with people who will both protect the delta AND keep the interest of Southern Cal in mind.

chiselchest
12-20-2007, 02:23 AM
The talk about "new facilities for conveyance and storage, and better linkage between the two, are needed to better manage California’s water resources for both the estuary and exports" leads me to believe they are canal biased...

Yaker
12-20-2007, 09:35 AM
I agree Mitch. Looks like they're prepping for a canal decision but masking it with Delta protection talk.

HookedForLife
12-20-2007, 02:03 PM
Since a large share of the blame for fisheries and ecosystem declines in the Delta rests on water exports, has anyone suggested that a Peripheral Canal - type project be constructed with the main goal of restoring the Delta ecosystem without any additional water exports? It seems that, in the past, water exports had priority over the ecosystem and that is what has led to the current pelagic organism decline. We need to restore the Delta first before even considering any more water exports. Better yet would be to put a moratorium on population and economic growth so that water demand does not continue to increase indefinitely into the future.

chiselchest
12-20-2007, 08:23 PM
has anyone suggested that a Peripheral Canal - type project be constructed with the main goal of restoring the Delta ecosystem without any additional water exports?
I have read where say that if the water exports were not increased, a canal might help the Delta, and I can't argue.

However, a canal will BOOST the capacity to remove water, and who can trust those responsible for that promise, even it was made. The newer HUGE pumps they have now are running at partial capacity, as they were designed for much higher rates.

I've read on others forums where County workers contribute and share info, those sparying the ergia densa weed, that slower moving water helps it get started. *So this invasive weed might spread and be much worse if that were the case.

The ONLY good thing I can think of concerning a canal, is the stopping of the river flow reversals that now exist, in the southern Delta. *Removing the water before entering the Delta would likely return these flows to their proper directions, although there would be so MUCH less water flowing the system--especialy the lower Delta where ag wastes are discharged...and need to flushed out (there opinion is, "The Solution To Polution Is Dilution", LOL)

My Opinion - Worth What You Paid Fot It....

HookedForLife
12-21-2007, 03:06 PM
[

has anyone suggested that a Peripheral Canal - type project be constructed with the main goal of restoring the Delta ecosystem without any additional water exports?
I have read where say that if the water exports were not increased, a canal might help the Delta, and I can't argue.

However, a canal will BOOST the capacity to remove water, and who can trust those responsible for that promise, even it was made. The newer HUGE pumps they have now are running at partial capacity, as they were designed for much higher rates.

I've read on others forums where County workers contribute and share info, those sparying the ergia densa weed, that slower moving water helps it get started. So this invasive weed might spread and be much worse if that were the case.

The ONLY good thing I can think of concerning a canal, is the stopping of the river flow reversals that now exist, in the southern Delta. Removing the water before entering the Delta would likely return these flows to their proper directions, although there would be so MUCH less water flowing the system--especialy the lower Delta where ag wastes are discharged...and need to flushed out (there opinion is, "The Solution To Polution Is Dilution", LOL)

My Opinion - Worth What You Paid Fot It....

It might be desirable to have a high pumping capacity when there are very high winter flows or even floods so water can be stored in offsite reservoirs, i.e. San Luis. *However, I see your point about not trusting what will happen in the future, like higher diversion rates. *A lot of people were against the original Peripheral Canal because they didn't trust public institutions (or voters) to do the right thing later on for the environment. *We have a real dilema here, because the current situation of a degraded Delta environment isn't acceptable either. *Do we take a chance?

clamkin
12-28-2007, 11:54 AM
I'm a little stunned that folks would think additional export capacity would be built with anything but export in mind???? The old saying, "Trust us, we're from the gov't and we're here to help" comes to mind.

Amazing the folks would think reducing flows is somehow going to improve the Delta mess. Increasing the saltwater encroachment further into the Delta has no benefits that I can tell. What am I missing here?

Dan Bacher
12-28-2007, 06:26 PM
In the history of the United States, there is not one documented example where the capacity of a water conveyance system was expanded without more water being taken out of a waterway. If the peripheral canal and more dams are built, more water will be taken out of the Delta.

There has never been in the history of the world one single example of where taking water out of an estuary resulted in a "better" ecosystem and fishery. Taking water out of a river system will always result in the destruction, or at least impairment, of the estuary. This has occurred on the Tigris, Euphrates, Nile, Colorado and numerous other rivers where huge dams and water conveyance systems have drastically altered the estuarine ecosystems.

Anybody who thinks that expanded export capacity on the Delta won't result in the destruction of the Delta is delusional. Any so-called "biologist" that argues otherwise is in reality not a natural scientist, but a "political biologist" that is beholden to corporate agribusiness and the state water contractors.

In response to the concept, "We have a real dilemma here, because the current situation of a degraded Delta environment isn't acceptable either" I argue that the main problem resulting in the destruction of the Delta fishery is increased water exports after 2000. If we went back to pre-2001 export levels and the state and federal governments were finally forced to mitigate fish losses at the Delta pumps like they should have done decades ago, delta smelt, longfin smelt, juvenile striped bass, threadfin shad, chinook salmon, steelhead will recover. Some big precipitation years would help.

Many Delta fish species were well on their way to recovery before the state and federal governments began ramping up exports. Meanwhile, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries and Department of Fish and Game, the so-called "stewards of our resources," stood by and did nothing, just like they did in the Prospect Island Fish Kill.

HookedForLife
12-31-2007, 12:53 PM
Unless some pumps are removed at the State and Federal pumping facilities, it appears that the only two ways we have now to reduce or control pumping rates are the Endangered Species Act and saltwater intrusion into the Central and South Delta during low freshwater outflow. What happens if pumping rates go back to pre-2001 levels and native fish species recover enough to be delisted? Will pumping rates go back up again until ESA listing reoccurs? Will this be a never-ending cycle? Even if this is so, this situation may be preferable to a peripheral canal being built because of the risk of water exports increasing and further damaging the estuary. If we assume that a canal means more water exports, then there is no dilemma - don't build the canal!

I don't see any long-term solution on the horizon until there is a halt to human population growth and associated water demand. If this doesn't happen and water supply gets critical enough in the future, there may even be another attempt to change the ESA, which would be very unfortuanate for society in general.