facebook twitter you tube

Public Responses


MWD Tunnels

Apr 07, 2018



A public agency funding a project that has not been defined or the total cost determined. What could possibly go wrong with that. Why I am sure it will be as successful as the other Brown project, the non-bullet train to nowhere.


Not to mention the fact that the yield is unclear, likely very small. Through trick statistical maneuvering the Board was given a yield figure that is not factual. And many Board members are more interested being part of a legacy vote rather than whether it is wise for ratepayers.

Jan McCleery 

I can't believe MWD really is so oblivious to the concerns about saving the Delta that they want to put a destructive construction project right through the middle of sensitive waterways, waterfowl habitat, and ruin communities in the North and the South Delta. Why not move the construction around the Delta, like the Peripheral Canal proposed? Of course, we don't trust MWD or the other water exporters to really manage the exports in a way to protect fish. They have not done that for the past decades.


Libi Uremovic 

'...$5 billion to help pay for a single tunnel or spend nearly $11 billion to fund the majority share of two tunnels....'

they could use that money to build secure water sources for socal - why do they keep chasing this 60 year old - suggestion, for lack of a better word - that's wasted tens of millions of dollars ... 

even the state water agencies located in socal are only focused on buying water from the north instead of solving their own water problems - they do have an ocean and there's been a state mandate to build recycled water facilities, but many just stole their bond money and never built the facility ..