Group items tagged

the cost-to-benefit ratio of the proposed tunnels makes no sense.

AquAlliance

The Butte Environmental Council of Chico has joined other groups to call for more science-based "policy before plumbing," explained Carol Perkins, BEC water policy advocate. More water conservation should take place, and better policies to put "beneficial use for people, farmers, fish and aquatic habitat before the economic benefits of the 1 percent," Perkins said.

“A spokesman for the Environmental Water Caucus took a few verbal swipes at the Bay Delta Conservation Project (BDCP) during a November 29 Public Meeting in Sacramento. Nick Di Croce, one of the facilitators for the Caucus, indicated that most of the environmental organizations that make up the Caucus are opposed to the proposed tunnels or any other peripheral conveyance intended to divert Sacramento River water under or around the Delta. He characterized BDCP as an “impending environmental and financial disaster whose costs and unsettled financing are going to bury the tunnel-oriented project.” He indicated that his organization has questioned the Interior Department and the California Resources Department on what the real costs of fixing the Delta are, who is really going to pay for the project, and where the water is going to come from. Their questions have not been answered. … “

I was happy to see the Enterprise-Record's Friday editorial about the proposed delta water tunnels. These tunnels, if built, will drain the water in our north state rivers and aquifers, and will change our landscape and lifestyle forever. Like Lake Oroville and the California Aqueduct, once built there is no going back. It's critical that we, the citizens of the Northern California counties, take action to prevent the construction of these tunnels and the destruction to the north state that they will cause. A great deal of information has already been learned about the impacts of sending more of our water south. That information can be found on the websites of two excellent organizations in Chico. Both have been monitoring water policy in California for years and have been working to protect our water supplies. They are Aqualliance (www.aqualliance.net) and the Butte Environmental Council (www.becnet.org). Aqualliance was formed by local citizens, ranchers and farmers who realized the risk to our water supplies and who have been fighting to protect our water. BEC advocates for our natural resources and is actively working to inform citizens about current water plans and fighting powerful Southern California interests.

Pay attention, learn the facts, find out what you can do, and support the groups that are working very hard for us. A great deal is at stake but by working together, we can

protect our water and our way of life in Northern California. — Nancy Praizler, Chico

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan backed by Gov. Jerry Brown’s office is almost too enormous to comprehend. But it’s far and away the most significant infrastructure project going, so we have to try.

Robyn DiFalco, executive director of the Butte Environmental Council, expressed a sentiment echoed by many water-conscious North State organizations and residents—that diverting water south through the proposed tunnels for mostly agricultural purposes in the San Joaquin Valley is in the best interest of that area’s farmers, but not for the rest of California.

“It’s just not good policy for the state to invest so much money on behalf of watering farms in a desert,” she said.

There’s an easier, cheaper, less destructive way to meet the state’s water needs This article was published on 02.07.13.

Most of the proposals Gov. Jerry Brown put forth in his State of the State speech Jan. 24 were welcomed by most of the lawmakers in his audience. Only one item ran into serious opposition in the hours and days following the speech: the proposal to construct two huge—and hugely expensive—35-mile-long “peripheral tunnels” under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to ship Northern California water south. Different entities—Bay Area water districts, environmentalists, Delta counties, fishing groups—have different reasons for opposing the tunnels. Residents of Northern California, those of us who live where the water is generated, fear that it will divert so much Sacramento River water south that farmers will be forced to use more and more groundwater for irrigation, sucking dry the Tuscan aquifer.

Forum examines water from a religious view

This article was published on 02.07.13.

New construction, whether of dams, reservoirs, canals or two giant tunnels under the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, will not solve the state’s water problems. That seemed to be the message issued at a forum on the Chico State campus Tuesday (Jan. 5) that featured five speakers, including a Zen Buddhist, a Muslim, a Christian and an attorney of undetermined religious affiliation. The forum, according to a press release, was a “focus on the spiritual and stewardship issues that surround water, including water as an element to all life, as a human right, and as a contentious public policy in Californian and beyond.” It is time, speakers suggested, to change our collective mindset and respect the Earth and our neighbors.

Opponents react to Bay Delta Conservation Plan report

This article was published on 12.12.13.

Opponents of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, Gov. Jerry Brown’s push for two tunnels to funnel North State water south, were quick to react to the release of the plan’s environmental reports this week. A statewide group called Californians for a Fair Water Policy, whose membership includes the local water watchdogs AquAlliance and the Butte Environmental Council, has launched a statewide campaign opposing the plan.

The northern Sacramento Valley faces a serious threat. Gov. Jerry Brown continues to push his twin tunnels project, under the guise of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. The plan proposes a pair of massive tunnels with design capacity sufficient to drain the Sacramento River in a dry year.

As Butte Environmental Council’s (BEC) water policy analyst representing North State communities, I reviewed and analyzed more than 40,000 pages of the plan’s description and environmental review documents. An increased, uncompromised water supply for south of Delta interests is the desire. Big Ag and Big Oil will get more water, you get the bill.

Proponents failed to disclose the true source of water (the Sacramento Valley), but water transfers are written all over this plan. In fact, 34 separate documents reference water transfers. Proponents failed to acknowledge the potential for environmental and social impacts to the areas of origin, but removing up to 1 million acre-feet of water surely would have significant impacts. And, proponents failed to disclose the amount of groundwater that will increase water flow through the tunnels.

AquAlliance, a water advocacy group in Butte County, has vowed to file a lawsuit to try and stop Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's plan to drill five new wells in eastern Glenn County. Speakers at a public forum last week in Ord Bend called GCID's plans to pump more groundwater in times of drought "excessively greedy" and potentially harmful to area groundwater levels already taxed to the point that residential wells are running dry.

"Glenn County needs to enact an emergency ordinance just as Colusa County did," said Orland farmer Sharron Ellis, of Save our Water Resources. "Oversight of our resources is the responsibility of our county to protect the public trust."

The project calls for five additional deep-water wells to be drilled along the Glenn-Colusa canal on sites east of Orland and Artois, which would yield 28,500 acre-feet of water taken over approximately eight months during critically dry years, GCID officials said.