This page and the links provided attempt to summarize
all the issues or conflicts associated with the Sacramento San Joaquin
Delta region, and with the continued increase of water exports from the
Delta. Issue statement and possible resolutions are the opinion of
the webmaster and each individual who cares about the future of this
state should take the time to review and determine for himself/herself
the best resolution(s) to the issues. It may be helpful to review
the series of pages showing many of the planning maps of the last 110
years!
Delta
Maps See also short
videos on select issues
Issue or Topic
Summary statement
and links
Water Flow
**10/19/2011 data upload
** 11/28/2011 data upload
** 12/4/2011 data upload
Issue:Bottomline, its all about the water. It doesn't matter how the
water is exported from the Delta as much as how MUCH water is exported
from the Delta, and from what location within the Delta region. There is not enough fresh water for all the
demands of 21st Century California, so one has to "budget" very
carefully who gets what water when. If too much fresh water is
taken from the Delta, it will destroy the natural ecological
environment, will destroy prime farmland, and put many fish species at
risk of extinction. How much water flows into the Delta? How much
water is exported? How much fresh water flows out of the Delta?
Historical review of these questions show there is great confusion
regarding Delta waterflow which should be resolved BEFORE any new export
operations or construction plans are approved or built.
Waterflow calculations
You can also go to the "Computer Modeling" video to see
How State Water Contractors will make at least $1.5 billion extra per
year by revision of Yolo Bypass flow modeling, Or the
Value of Sacramento River
Extra Exports See the video series "It
Depends on Who's Counting" To see hundreds of
documents and maps focused on waterflow:
Sacrament River Waterflow Solution: Use
only waterflow data from before 2000 for consistency and veracity of
planning of true effects on the Delta from additional exports. Flow
and quality monitoring must ONLY be reported as happening at the
specific gate-flow from one area of the Delta can not be added to
another area of the Delta for reporting purposes.
Consider alternatives for water storage during years of higher
precipitation, to allow for more consitent water export in drier years.
Water Quality
Issue:
Export of additional Sacramento River water will result in encroachment
of higher salinity water into the prime farm lands of the Delta.
In addition, Export of additional Sacramento River water to other areas
of the state will severely impact or destroy up to 500,000 acres of
prime Delta farm lands, destroy the natural aquatic environment of the
Delta, assure the complete extinction of several native fish species,
and potentially degrade the water quality of the entire North Bay,
Sacramento and San Francisco aquafers due to reduction in freshwater
recharge coupled with an increase in levels of natural and dumped toxins
into the remaining waterways of the Delta. In other words, expect
the complete degredation of sections of Northern California fresh water
resources. Special note: The proposed Delta Plan and the
BDCP protect only waterflow for environmental purposes...the documents
should be required to also have language protecting waterflow for
agricultural and navigation uses per previous assurances from the last
100 years of water planning documents and litigated issues. Solution:
Include in any new Delta Plan guarantees of fresh water flow sufficient
to provide for all existing Delta uses, including farming, navigation
and recreation. Prohibit more than 1 ppt of salinity incroachment
beyond a defined point that can not change, such as Chips Island.
Install flow and salinity monitoring gages magaged by NDWA, paid for by
water exporters, on each of the original navigable waterways of the
Delta, including the Sacramento River "Main Stem-Old River) at least to
Sacramento, Steamboat Slough, Sutter Slough, and the San Joaquin River
to Stockton. Prohibit the export of Sacramento River water above export levels of the
1950's when fish species declines became more noted, until such time
as the endangered species. Consistently calculate exported water by one single
method for easier tracking and accountability, such as by Acre Feet or
Gallons. Prohibit use of pumps to increase water flow for
export-to avoid fish entrainment. Prohibit resale of transported
water that was subsidized by rate payers. If the water is not
needed by the farmer in a particular water year, that water is retained
in storage by the state for future use. Prohibit ALL San Joaquin
Valley (to Kern County) farmers from discharging irrigation runoff into
canals that would put the runoff into the general conveyance systems or
the Delta or San Joaquin River, if such runoff has high levels of
selenium or other known toxin. Charge water exporters and
receipients sufficient amounts per acre foot or gallon received such
that 75% of the charge covers all costs of conveyance and restoration,
and 25% is put into a fund to be managed by Delta land owners for the
physical and economic protection of the lands, residents, businesses and
towns located within the primary region of the legal Delta. At any
point in time where water quality levels (more than .5 ppt) is detected
on any monitored waterway of the Delta, export pumps or flow gates shall
be closed until the water quality issue resolves. Water quality
monitoring stations will be placed at each natural waterway of the
Sacramento River system, at the point where salinity intruision is most
likely to occur. For major waterways, like the Sacramento River,
Steamboat Slough, and the Sacramento Ship Channel, two or three monitors
may be required if export pumps or flow stations are located along these
waterways. In such case, water quality monitoring stations would
be required approximately 1000 feet below the export facility.
Computer Modeling
*updated 10/19/2011*
Issue:
"If you put Garbage in, won't you just get garbage out?". Use of computer modeling to determine
impacts from proposed actions in the Delta can be an effective tool IF,
and only IF, the raw data is input correctly. When incorrect or
false raw data is input, common sense says the output will also be
incorrect. Currently, challenges to data input and output of
computer modeling are ignored or explained away by comments like "we're
using the best science available". Since, like historical
facts, incorrect raw data imput is a provable and measurable item, it is
a matter of time for the legal impacts of use of false data for planning
will affect the state agencies and the contractors who generate the
false data. Go to Computer Modeling the Delta
Examples of computer modeling data imput: How State Water
Contractors will make at least $1.5 billion extra per year by revision
of Yolo Bypass flow modeling, Waterflow calculations,
DRMS Phase 1,
Bacon Island-Jones Tract
studies. Sollutions: It's
complicated! Many of the studies of the last 10 years may contain
incorrect results due to incorrect raw data input. Review of the
studies, identification of the most important studies, and a repeat of
the modeling to see if the result is the same should be required.
No decisions affecting the Delta should be made until the computer
modeling is verified as accurate. See the videos regarding computer modeling (Yolo
Bypass Big Bucks) and water flow reports (It Depends on Who's Counting)
for some suggestions.
Control & Management
(State vs. Federal)
Issue:
The Delta has over 700,000 acres, most of it prime farm land, excellent
water recreation areas, and it includes 5 counties of Northern
California between San Francisco, Stockton and Sacramento. Some
say there are over 220 different state and federal agencies that have
some sort of regulatory control of aspects of the Delta. The
problem is that most of the landowners of the Delta, themselves, have
been virtually excluded from the planning processes since about 1995.
The focus has not been "How much more water can we take from the Delta?"
but "how much fresh water to we really have to leave in the Delta?
And for what reason?". If outsiders control the waterflow and
Delta lands, they do not have a vested interest in preserving the fresh
water flow and eden-like agricultural environment. Sollutions:
Consider the following: (1) limit water export from the Delta once and
for all, and that limit is based on actual available fresh water flow in
the primary Delta region, regardless of any diversions north of the
Delta-exporters fund the in-delta quality and flow monitoring, which is
controlled and managed by in-delta landowner agency; (2) guarantee Delta landowner uses and rights, and provide
permanent funding to enforce those guarantees; (3) Define just one
agency to work with the five counties to regulate Delta activities; (4)
Require that water agencies that receive water transported through the
Delta pay 30% of the cost of that water into a Delta fund for Delta-only
improvements & management, and for county property tax loss compensation
from restored lands; (5) Legislatively make it illegal to sell water
rights that require transport of fresh water to an area more than 50
miles from the water right seller; (6) Provide permanent (see #4)
funding for the Delta landowners to have their own management and
restoration agency staffed only by Delta landowners or their
representatives, with the sole purpose to protect Delta land and water
assets, landowners, towns, businesses and residents.
Issue:
The Sacramento River is a highly managed system that on average has no
more than 18,000 MAF of flow per year, due to north-of-Delta exports,
environmental protection exports, and other factors. Much of that
water is already exported using the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana
Slough as conveyance canals. Proposals to expand exports to 15,000
cfs, if approved, will drain portions of the lower Sacramento River of
most of its historic or natural fresh water flow. There just is
not enough water to satisfy the demands of water exporters south of the
Delta, and also meet the land and water rights of properties and people
within the Delta. In addition, from 2004 to today many sections of
the CALFED 2000 "preferred alternative" conveyance plan (renamed several
times as Delta Improvements Package (DIP), South Delta Improvement
Package (SDIP), North Delta Improvements Package (NDIP), Armored
Aqueduct, Freshwater Corridor, Large Owner AXis, Ecosystem Friendly
Corridor, Fish Corridor and other creative names). You can change
the name but its all the same plan. One has to question WHY would
the state and the water exporters pay for all this construction
happening now and during the last few years if the end goal is not
really the CALFED 2000 plan? Sollutions:
Invalidate each and every "regional project" eir/eis plan and process
that did not take into acccount and analyze the effects on the entire
Delta ecosystem and prime farm lands. Prohibit use of any of the
already-built conveyance facilities until such time as the water quality
issues are fully addressed to protect Delta interests and Northern
California interests. (draft...subject to expansion and revision)
Delta Resources
(State vs. Federal and public vs private)
Issue:
CalFED
Issue:
The CALFED preferred conveyance canal/tunnel is almost completed to
divert Sacramento River water, but the required restoration projects,
and even a plan, and not complete.
The process by which Federal and State agency representatives jointly
planned the actions necessary to divert more water away from the Delta.
CalFed has a "conveyance" focus and a "restoration" focus. The "central
conveyance" plan from 2000 has almost been completely built in
sections, as regional or local projects, up to and including action in
2011. There is still no approved "restoration" plan, nor confirmed
funding for restoration. CalFed restoration process is called the
Bay-Delta Conservation Plan.
Elevations
(Facts vs. Fiction)
***10-25-2011 data upload
Issue: The Bay Delta Conservation Plan and
DSC-Delta Plan often refer to the elevations of the lands of the Delta.
The problem is that in many, many important instances the
elevations depicted on the maps are WRONG. Go to
Delta Elevation Maps
Fish Studies
(native vs immigrants)
Issue:
History-Timelines***
Issue:
Starting approximately 2003, historical facts about the Delta began to
be revised most likely to validate the planned changes to the Delta, or
at least make it more difficult for Delta defenders to challenge the
revised Delta data. Sometimes just being silent on a key historical
point in time is a way of conveying false data. However, true Delta history can be easily
verified by researching reports, books, maps and other written documents
published prior to 2003, and better yet, look at the whole water
development history of California. The problem with using false
Delta history is that the studies and "science" that relies of the false
data are also therefore false or wrong. (see, for example,
Delta Flood History) Incidents of false Delta data use is both alarming and comical.
Not comical is the legal risk of the scientists, agencies and businesses
that use the false data to validate action in the Delta.
Historical Timeline charts have been generated for some of the issues;
false historical data initiation by DWR and DWR contractors are noted in
the timelines.
Invasive Species
(control cost vs. public benefit)
Issue: The Delta, along with many other
important lakes and waterways of the United States, has seen a great
increase in invasive plant species that overtake the natural aquatic
environment to create a different environment that may not be condusive
to life of the native or natural aquatic species of the area. For
example, an aquatic water weed called egeria densa tends to grow where
water flow is slower and warmer. Studies show this weed is very
detrimental to the hatching and growth of native fish species like
salmon or smelt. The more fresh water is diverted from the Delta,
the less flow is left to get ride of aquatic invasive species. The
only way to control the weed is to remove it manually, as is done in the
Tahoe Keys are of South Lake Tahoe, or to treat with pesticides, as was
done in 2011 in Discovery Bay in the west Delta area. As more
water is diverted from the Delta, the state and federal agencies will
have to deal with the increased cost to combate this and other invasive
species.
Maps-revisions
(Fact vs. Fiction)
Issue: Maps tell a story, in a sense.
When one reviews maps from the last 150 years of California land
development, the importance of the Delta region to California's entire
economy becomes very apparant. Review the historical maps,
particularily the ones that show the Delta from about 1930 to 1965, when
lots of improvements happened, and when the Sacramento and San Joaquin
Deep Ship Channels were further improved. Then look at the
planning maps of the last 15 or more years. The maps tell a story.
Watch the background maps of the nightly news main stations-see any
missing waterways of the Delta? There is a saying that the victor
in a war writes the history books. Online media and a few books
dispersed over the last 10 years makes it appear the probable "victor"
in the California water wars has already been writing those revised
history books. Its also interesting to note many public libraries
in California have been clearing out their older history books of
California and putting in the revised history books. In any case,
if you want to see some WRONG maps of the Delta from the agency planning
documents from the last 10 years see
Wrong maps of the Delta
Transportation & Navigation
Issue: Many visitors to the Delta area are
frustrated because there are very few road signs, some major cell phone
companies, like Verizon, do not work well in the Delta, many GPS
services in vehicles confuse Delta island and road names, and even
Google maps have been incorrect regarding Delta roads and islands in the
past. In addition, CalTrans installed a new ferry on a major
travel corridor for Delta travelers (St. Rt. 84) and the ferry keeps
breaking down so now that corrider access is limited to emergency
vehicles only. Navigation
in the Delta is being threatened by elimination of historical or natural
waterways due to reduction of water flows and increase of silting due to
the reduction is water flows.
Ownership Rights & Eminent Domain
State and Federal agencies are proposing, and
taking, actions that result in the elimination of basic land owner
rights under both the state and federal constitutions. The sole
purpose of the elimination of rights is to control the flow of the fresh
water for export purposes. The state is currently, and will in the
future, greatly increase the cost of water to each individual user in
the state due to the litigation costs associated with the breach of
landowner rights. The media talks about the cost of building new
conveyance...always watch out for the silence. What about the cost
of litigation? Cost to take the prime farm lands for conveyance
and ecological experiments in the Delta and San Francisco Bay?
Cost to defend every legislator who is allowing the proposed diversion
of so much water from the Sacramento River that the only result can be
substantil further decline of Northern California Bay and Delta
ecosystems, and the eventual decline of water quality in the Sacramento
Valley aquifer? What about the cost of the lost imcome from
Northern California fishing, recreation and tourism industries? If
the state gets away with this project, billed as the "largest
restoration effort" in US history, (its a conveyance project requiring
mitigation) will any prime land anywhere in the US be safe from attack
and seizure under the guize of "restoration"? Using ecological
wording for a construction project does not change the outcome...a
building project.
Recreation
Since California became a state, the Delta area
has been a much-loved boating, fishing and water sports recreation area.
There were over 130 marinas within the Delta's legal region in 1990.
As the state moves to effectively control alspects of Delta
transportation and activity, the elimination of marinas or access to
motorized boating on navigatble waterways continues. The latest
versions of the Delta "economic sustainability" plans propose to use
government-owned lands on Sherman Island to promote agri-tourism and
ecotourism as if these activities will replace the lost income from
destruction of prime Delta Farm Lands and elimination or revision of
more than 30% of the navigable waterways, which would be downgraded to
shallow habitat areas accessible by canoe or kayak only. Perhaps
if the entire Delta becaume a wine region to compete with the Napa and
Sonoma valleys, it might replace the boating recreation dollars that
will be lost to the area... The other issue is that many different
officials from DWR and other state agencies have said state owned lands
will be used first for restoration projects...so Sherman Island is
supposed to be used for restoration, not recreation. Or if the
state feels that restoration and recreation are compatible joint uses,
it might work and the same joint use would need to be recognized as
feasible in the other areas of the Delta the state plans to "restore".
Restoration-BDCP
Issue:Bay-Delta Conservation Plan
in 2000 the CALFED Record of Decision was agreed to by the state and
water exporters and several major environmental groups. That plan
had a conveyance component and a restoration component. The
conveyance plan is a "central canal" which has been built over several
years as regional projects and "joint authority" projects under various
names. Add up all the projects and its still the central
conveyance plan, with some modifications or additions as agreed in
2003-2004 by some of the primary state water exporters. What has
NOT been agreed to is the "conservation" portion of the BDCP;
there are many proposals but the effects on the Delta econsystem and
water quality and water flow within the Delta are at risk from BDCP
proposals. Whle environmentalists, fish specialists, courts and
locals meet to discuss BDCP restoration options, the building of the
central conveyance alternave continues. Go ahead and take a drive
around the Delta. Ignore the names put on projects...just look at
a few of the conveyance maps from 2000-2004 and then take a drive.
Notice the levee improvements going on along the different forks of the
Mokelumne River? Notice the application for lot line
adjustment/levee setbacks for places like Dead Horse Island?
Notice the huge fish screen/water pumps facility in Freeport?
Notice the new water siphon facility under construction at the southern
end of Empire Tract? Notice the change to Antioch's water
diversion locations? Notice the Intertie completion? Notice
the improvemetns of bridges on Twin Cities Road and Hood Road?
Notice the work at McCormack/Williamson Tract? Notice how the
latest DWR documents list Bacon Island as targeted for in-Delta water
storage along with other possible islands to be used to capture excess
fresh water flow in excess years? Please see the
video on the
CalFed Name Game and review the
documents if you need maps for reference as you drive around the
Delta. As to the "restoration" plans, the targeted areas of the
Delta are targeted because they could be severly impacted by the
diversion of a majority of the fresh water of the Sacramento
River...hide the impacts of diversion by the "restoration" plans seems
to be the method of choice for development of reports or studies
validating the targeted restoration areas. (Personal opinion)
Seismic Risk
What seismic rish? No levee has been know
to fail from any of the earthquakes in California. A study and
test conducted in 2011 on Sherman Island failed to make a "test" levee
fail. The media, which is controlled by the water exporters, no
doubt, have used the public's fear of earthquakes to fabricate a sense
of risk of levee failure. Ofr course, an earthquake can happen
anywhere, and failure of certain levees would put water quality of
exports at risk. However, its much more likely both Los Angeles
area and SF Bay area would receive that feared "big one"...why not focus
on limiting development and populations in the high risk areas of
California instead?
Steamboat Slough & Ryer Island
Water Quality & Toxins
Water Rights
Pending...should landowners with no vested water
rights have priority over those with long standing water rights, just
because the ones without water rights have more money to control the
political process? It the revision of common law and state
property rights law is modified by the cumulation of the various aspects
of the new "Delta Plan", wouldn't the same change to other property
rights be coming next?
ISSUE: If Delta Planners can't even figure
out the correct names for Delta islands and waterways, and have lost
sight of true Delta history, what business do they have determing the
Delta's future? Frankly, Its pretty shocking to note how many
official and "final" documents reltated to Delta studies have been wrong
on basic, verifiable, historic FACTS about the physical locations
studied, or about the actual history of the locations. If the
planners regarding the Delta don't even know its actual physical
location, soils, elevations, history, population and importance to the
California economy, what business do they have proposing a REVISION to
the existing Delta configuration? Do California legislators and
taxpayers feel confident in the drafters of the reports and studies
publishing false Delta data, despite the obvious mistakes made?
One needs to look at motives for the false data published, as not all
false data was "mistakes". RESOLUTION: Prohibit any changes to the Delta until such time as
the faulty studies and reports are corrected and published, after review
by independent persons with no vested financial interest in the
outcomes. In addition, the costs of correction of reports and
studies shall be paid for by the person or corporation that published
the false data in the report, not paid for by taxpayer funds. In
addition, corporations or independent contractors that published false
data or maps regarding the Delta in the last 10 years will be prohibited
from contracting for any government agency project for a period of at
least 5 years, to discourage future rash publication of false data.
