facebook twitter you tube

Public Responses



Nov 05, 2017

 Wayne Lusvardi


The Cal Water Fix may or may not make economic sense especially over the alternative of doing nothing and continuing to rely on the existing system. But that is besides the point of why the system is being proposed. Doing nothing means Southern California could (again) be held hostage to yet another environmental lawsuit that would halt water deliveries from Northern California, such as happened from 2007 to 2010 with the lawsuit over the Delta Smelt fish. This was an adjudicated drought not a meteorological drought. One MWD official called it the "wettest drought" ever. But this begs the question, was the 2007-10 adjudicated drought contrived to get Southern Californians to embrace a Delta water fix? California continues to run a structural water deficit each year that, over, say, four years, results in another water shortage. If the weather is hot during the fourth year it is called a drought. If the weather is mild then there is a lawsuit over fish to shut down water deliveries to Southern California because it can't be called a "drought". California's water policy is one of oscillating water deficits that compound into water shortages over about a five year cycle. The "water fix" won't fix that structural water deficit but it will better assure delivery of water from Northern Cal to Southern Cal through a tube (tunnel) that runs underground and does not provide a "fish run". It could be said the whole proposal is an $18 billion project to avoid fish and thus, avoid, environmental lawsuits. An Ethiopian proverb says "a fool is thirsty in the midst of water".