3 comments:

• Robert Pyke posted at 2:53 pm on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

  Posts: 1

  Mike Wade is to be commended for his persistence in responding to every criticism or alternative to the BDCP, but the suspicion that he never actually reads these criticisms is confirmed by the fact that in this instance he is responding to the NRDC alternative approach to the BDCP and not to what I proposed to the Galt City Council and what they unanimously agreed to. What I proposed to the Council was that any broad solution to the current crisis in the Delta has to comply with two principles: (1) Allow natural flows to pass through the Delta before any surplus is extracted for export; and (2) Extract more water during high flows and less or no water during low flows. I actually agree with Mike Wade’s conclusion that the NRDC potpourri approach does not solve the problem, in my case because it does not comply with these two basic principles, but neither does the BDCP apparent preferred project. Years of study provides no guarantee that the consultants who have been feeding at the trough have found the optimum solution. It only confirms the obvious which is that it is more in the interest of a bureaucracy or a consulting team to study a problem to death rather than to solve it.

  • Link

   

• Mike Wade posted at 10:48 am on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

  Posts: 5

  Years of study have gone into the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to achieve the goals of achieving a reliable water supply and a restored Delta ecosystem, as mandated by the California Legislature. Scientists and researchers have studied multiple options and the current proposal includes the twin tunnels with a capacity of 9,000 cfs.
  
  Contrary to those who believe the tunnels will drain the Sacramento River or take away flows needed for the Delta, the water flowing through the tunnels will increase and decrease according to available water supply.
  
  The alternative plan being pushed by NRDC features a single 3,000 cfs tunnel is insufficient to meet the needs of all water users, especially farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. BDCP researchers studied a similar undersized proposal more than a year ago and concluded that it did not meet the legislative directive that governs the BDCP. Results of that research can be found here- http://su.pr/1L2lpr

  Mike Wade
  California Farm Water Coalition

  • Link

   

• Doug Chaney posted at 6:31 am on Fri, Feb 8, 2013.

  Posts: 402

  The only problem with the Delta issue is that now that the powerful, super majority, power hungry dems have control of the legislature, who will be powerful enough to stop the absurd peripheral canal project. Since water has become such a valuable commodity, being bought and sold for tremendous profits, it appears to me that the Delta issue will be decided on a financial basis, who will stand to profit the most with the canal bypass in place and not a decision based on whether the Delta will survive. The farmers and public will literally be giving this much needed resource away to the southern part of the state to those who will make the huge profits controlling, buying and selling this additional water supply while those who depend on it here in the central valley and Delta will see even less of the paltry amounts they are allotted now. Any Delta water should be taken after the supply passes through the richly laden soils and agricultural venues upstream. Great response, city of Galt.

  • Link