559-286-7795
facebook twitter you tube
 

Newsletter

 

Tunnel Compromise?

"Who gets left out if there's less water available? Do we really need to answer our own rhetorical question?"

Feb 19, 2019

L.A. Times writer George Skelton writes about what he calls a grand compromise with the twin tunnels proposed under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.  As he says, "The battle has been over whether to bore two monster water tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta or to build none at all. The solution: Duh. One tunnel."

We would like to refer you to a newsletter we wrote in February of 2013 called "NRDC Small Ball Strategy" where we note that "The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) would, no doubt, like to stop the plan entirely, but not being able to achieve that goal is pushing for a smaller tunnel plan with a capacity of 3,000 cfs as compared to two tunnels with a capacity of 9,000 cfs."

Here is the entire February 25, 2013 newsletter with our prediction that a smaller tunnel plan would most likely leave Central Valley farmers out of the equation.  We asked:  "Who gets left out if there's less water available? Do we really need to answer our own rhetorical question?"

NRDC 'Small Ball' Strategy

February 25, 2013

 

The strategy the left is developing when it comes to the delta tunnels is becoming more and more apparent. The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan has been going through its various evolutions over the past few years and they've concluded that twin tunnels with a capacity of 9-thousand cfs (cubic feet per second) are necessary to reach the co-equal goals of a healthy Delta ecosystem and a reliable supply of water heading south to the Central Valley and Southern California. 

It has been our concern from the very beginning that whatever plan is finally agreed upon will either leave farmers out of the equation entirely or make water so expensive that only SoCal residents can afford it. The NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council) would, no doubt, like to stop the plan entirely, but not being able to achieve that goal is pushing for a smaller tunnel plan with a capacity of 3,000 cfs as compared to two tunnels with a capacity of 9,000 cfs. We know and they know that the voters of SoCal (20-million residents) are going to get their water one way or another. So why the 'small ball' variation of the plan? Who gets left out if there's less water available? Do we really need to answer our own rhetorical question? We might remind you that the NRDC was behiind the San Joaquin River Restoration Agreement that was supposed to let us get water back that was sent down the river to the delta, but then sued to stop pumping it back into the system because of the Delta Smelt.

By the way, the NRDC doesn't call their plan the 'screw the farmer and Central Valley plan' which it what it should be called, but rather the 'portfolio-based conceptual alternative' to the governor's plan. Nice touch, don't you think? Oh, by the way, it appears that some of the SoCal water districts (San Diego County Water Authority, Otay Water district, City of San Diego) are taking the bait by joining a coalition composed of The Bay Institute, the Contra Costa Council, Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Entrepreneurs, the Planning and Conservation League and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Bad company. 

Skelton: Brown was obsessed with twin-tunnel vision. Newsom has a more realistic view

Valid RSS FeedGet the 10 most recent items from our RSS feed.

helpdonate
helpdonate