- Home
- News
- Opinion
- Letters
- Sports
- Prospecting
- Essentials
- Obituaries
- Real Estate
- Comics
- Gallery
- Classifieds
- Advertisers
- Coupons
- Contact Us
Share Article
768
1,8697681,869
Some of you may have noticed the coverage of the Delta Stewardship Council and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan by our regular correspondent, Roberta Long. They are detailed and well researched. You won’t find that news in any other newspaper. The Mountain Democrat assigned Mrs. Long to bird dog this issue because every action they take in the Delta will affect all of us here in the Sierra foothills.
That effect was made startlingly direct when the Delta Stewardship Council included all the watershed in its study map. The clear statement was the council was going to take control of our water.
Enter the Mountain Counties Water Resources Association, which hired John Kingsbury. Kingsbury started critiquing various incarnations of the draft Delta plans. He also teamed up with the Association of California Water Agencies.
Now Kingbury has sparked the formation of a North State Water Alliance. The broad-based group recognizes that two-thirds of the state’s rain and snow falls on Northern California while two-thirds of the consumption comes from Southern California.
“Protecting Northern California’s water interests is our greatest concern. Our water supply and economic sustainability are in play,” Kingsbury said.
Even Sacramento is part of the Northern Alliance.
“Water rights priorities and area-of-origin assurances must be recognized and protected to insure reliable supplies for all water users and environmental needs in our region. We have to speak with one voice. We have to protect our upstream water rights,” said Roger Niello, president and CEO of the Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce.
“Stakeholders in the North State must be given the opportunity to be included in and consulted on all aspects of development of the Delta solution and other state and federal water policies that affect the region,” said Regional Water Authority Executive Director John Woodling.
The Northern Alliance is proving effective in getting its issues heard and the Delta Plan adjusted accordingly. It requires careful and intense study of the complex plan and detailed critiques of various issues. Acting together as one voice is the most valuable aspect of the North State Alliance. We’re counting on them to keep the environmental Taliban from stealing our water.
Dear Editor, you have been very slow to report on the Delta water grab and it has worried me for the past two years. I wrote you a “My Turn” piece about McClintock’s HR 1837, where he argued for one hour on the House floor to let the Federal Government (Sec of Interior) take over the Bay-Delta water contracts (something done by STATES not FEDERAL LAW) for Peripheral Canal water. Tom McClintock had Westlands Water Agency and Kern County Water Agency testify how they needed water — NO one from Northern County water agencies or Northern California Business communities. McClintock told me that — and I quote — No one has complained to him. (No you weren’t reporting on it.) …. McClintock’s Bill + the Delta Stewardship Council call for “WATER RELIABILITY”…. Water reliability of 9,000 to 15,000 CFS….. flushing down to Westlands & Kern water purveyors. This is a GREAT story and an IMPORTANT story, but you only had one report by Ms. Long. I don’t think this is anything to brag about.
Pat S: Thank you. Here is a link to one of Roberta’s articles on this issue. It was not in print edition. Shame! This is LARGE. LINK TO – House Central Valley water bill worries EID. Roberta emailed me that this appeared July 14th 2011 e-edition. The bill passed the House but not the Senate according to Roberta. Something has to be done about the way water is delivered. Presently a huge amount of “over release” is required to keep salt water “at bay”(literally). Salt water is shoved back by “over release”. A conveyance around or under the delta solves this problem, but creates another. When the releases are reduces it leaves the problem of salt water intrusion. It allows the delta to “go natural”. LINK TO – Historical Fresh Water and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay [note pages 117 & 118 contour lines delineating historical salt water intrusion pre and post CVP] My suggestion is that the final plan includes obligations to delta agriculture for a distribution system to replace their river/ground draws. EXPENSIVE! Yes, but allowing the salt to once again return to the delta as it historically did should be an easy sell to the enviros. Delta ag gets fresh water. Westlands gets fresh water. San Francisco Bay returns to “normal” pre CVP influence.
LINK TO – House Central Valley water bill worries EID
LINK TO – Historical Fresh Water and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay [note pages 117 & 118 contour lines delineating historical salt water intrusion pre and post CVP]
Pat S: Thank you. Here is a link to one of Roberta’s articles on this issue. It was not in print edition. Shame! This is LARGE Roberta emailed me that this appeared July 14th 2011 e-edition. The bill passed the House but not the Senate according to Roberta. Something has to be done about the way water is delivered. Presently a huge amount of “over release” is required to keep salt water “at bay”(literally). Salt water is shoved back by “over release”. A conveyance around or under the delta solves this problem, but creates another. When the releases are reduces it leaves the problem of salt water intrusion. It allows the delta to “go natural”. My suggestion is that the final plan includes obligations to delta agriculture for a distribution system to replace their river/ground draws. EXPENSIVE! Yes, but allowing the salt to once again return to the delta as it historically did should be an easy sell to the enviros. Delta ag gets fresh water. Westlands gets fresh water. San Francisco Bay returns to “normal” pre CVP influence.
SHOULD READ: “When the releases are reduced . . .
An interesting article that illustrates clearly the central obstacle to solving the ecological crisis in The Delta. Nimbyism.
Everybody wants to be part of the solution as long as it has ZERO impacts on them.
Should Area of Origin rights be protected ?
Absolutely, without question.
Just as Riparian rights both upstream and in Delta should be.
“Environmental Taliban” ?
Nice line, inflammatory and inaccurate, but still a catchy phrase.
You teamed with the ACWA ?
Talk about sleeping with the enemy. Yeesh
Is everyone clear on the ACWA position supporting a Peripheral Canal/Tunnel ?
You want guarantees of water quality and quantity ? So do farmers in the Delta.
Make no mistake, your enemy isn’t “them there left wing, tree hugging, environazi’s” trying to save a three inch bait fish.
The people that pose the biggest threat to “your” water are the same people that threaten to destroy what is left of the fisheries and viability of agriculture in the Delta.
Your enemy is an elite group of Central Valley Farmers led by a billionaire absentee landowner hell bent on aquiring senior water rights to continue to irrigate pomegranates and almonds (mostly for export) on the selenium tainted marginal soils of the west side while sueing the Federal Government (read taxpayers) to pay to remove and dispose of the toxic effluent that is the byproduct.
Your enemy is my enemy.
Corporate Welfare.
That’s all this is.
A simple redistribution of wealth.
Why is welfare somehow more acceptable when the recipients are the wealthiest among us ?
Phillip Veerkamp: You have some odd misconceptions of the Delta. Evidently you belong to the school of thought that the “environment” is a “user” of water and that any water allowed to reach the Bay is a “waste”. How sad. If you go to the link you provided and pay careful attention to the history of the C&H Sugar plant water data on pages 29 thru 34 (Distance to Fresh Water from Crockett 3.2.2)it will become readily apparent that the Delta while a “variable salinity” estuary was historically a predominently fresh water environment.Pre CVP C&H Sugar located in Crockett fully 20 miles west of the current X2 location at Chipps Island was taking fresh water regularly at their plant on the West end of the Carquinez Straits. So your concept of returning to ““normal” pre CVP influence” water quality would require a significant reduction in water exports from the Delta and likely an increase in water flows into the Delta. Are you sure you’ve thought this through ?
Chris Gulick writes: – ”Should Area of Origin rights be protected ? Absolutely, without question. Just as Riparian rights both upstream and in Delta should be.” – Chris, my thinking is this. Increasing delivery efficiency through the Delta would tend to decrease pressure on Area of Origin and Riparian rights. Regarding my “odd misconceptions of the Delta”: Perhaps I was overly influenced by LINK TO – PDF page thumbnails 117 and 118 – Historical Fresh Water and Salinity Conditions in the Western Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Bay – PDF page thumbnails 117 and 118
Chris, You assert, “Your enemy is an elite group of Central Valley Farmers led by a billionaire absentee landowner hell bent on aquiring senior water rights to continue to irrigate pomegranates and almonds (mostly for export) on the selenium tainted marginal soils of the west side . . . ” QUESTION: Who has more political clout – the “billionaire absentee landowner ” or the millions and millions of SoCal and Bay area voters who drink our water, wash their cars with our water, irrigate their golf courses with our water . . . ? I say our water rights are under attack by these voters also . . . LINK – Department of Water Resources
LINK – Edmonston_Pumping_Plant
LINK – A. D. Edmonston Pumping Plant Pump Replacement
LINK – California Aqueduct
LINK – Department of Water Resources
LINK – Edmonston_Pumping_Plant
LINK – A. D. Edmonston Pumping Plant Pump Replacement
LINK – California Aqueduct
Phillip,one would have to assume that you agree with me that NIMBY’ism is the central obstacle to a comprehensive solution.
How does improving conveyance “around/under” (as opposed to “through”) the Delta strengthen riparian rights “in” the Delta ?
As to your other question “Who has more political clout – the “billionaire absentee landowner ” or the millions and millions of SoCal and Bay area voters who drink our water, wash their cars with our water, irrigate their golf courses with our water”
The answer is self evident. The Billionaire.
Why ? When you have sufficient wealth to get elected officials to carry legislation like HR1837 that benefits a select few at the expense of the taxpayers you’re winning.
When you can influence a sitting governor to force a project like the Peripheral Canal/Tunnel, that will benefit a select few, on an electorate that is given NO chance to vote on taxes they will be required to pay to finance it you’re winning.
Phillip, you feed a common misconception every time you say “our water” in the context you use. Water is a Public Trust resource “owned” equally by all citizens of the state.
Area of Origin and Riparian are “rights” to reasonably and beneficially utilize water that is “owned” by the people, all the people, equally. A citizen living in Eureka has the same claim to ownership of water as a citizen of Yuba or S.F or Fresno or god forbid L.A.
Hence my claim that Nimbyism is the root obstacle. Note I said “ownership” not “rights” to utilize. There is a difference.
I have Riparian rights to San Joaquin River Water flowing by my home in the Delta.
Are my rights any less important than a landowner with Riparian rights who happens to live upstream of me ?
Should we both not be afforded equal representation and protection ?
Chris, if “NIMBY’ism” is the overarching term that includes court challenges to easement and rights-of-way acquisition, environmental concerns and so on then I suppose we agree. But it is more clear to me that “court challenge” is the larger universe of obstacles within which NIMBYs abuse environmental arguments in order to kill or redirect infrastructure projects. Chris, you ask, “How does improving conveyance “around/under” (as opposed to “through”) the Delta strengthen riparian rights “in” the Delta?” – It does not. That concern is behind my suggestion that a comprehensive plan recognizes and accommodates existing Delta riparian rights via new agricultural water infrastructure. My “vision” anticipates and “floats or sinks” on conceding that salt water further into the Delta will be accepted. The deep water channel will NOT be closed. The post 1900 draining of marshes and dredging of channels will not be reversed. It is my conjecture that “science will establish” that fish will successfully adapt to migrating a few miles more to reach fresh water. CLARIFICATION RE: “our water” I was sloppy. I should have referenced water rights body of law. When I used the term “our water” I was thinking primarily of the water rights “seniority system” (pardon the term). I was especially thinking of El Dorado County’s LINK – pre 1914 water rights as “our water” LINK. But I understand that all water rights are up for grabs. Lowyer up! (Intentional misspelling). LASTLY: It is my understanding that Westlands water rights are very junior. When Westlands water users complain about regulatory droughts they are (sorry) muddying the waters. They are at the end of the line.