Delta dis­rup­tion

Los Angeles Times - - OPINION -

Re “We need the delta tun­nels,” editorial, Oct. 8

I live on the Sacra­mento River. Build­ing and op­er­at­ing tun­nels to di­vert water from the Sacra­mento San Joaquin River Delta will de­stroy my com­mu­nity.

The levee roads were not made to han­dle the ad­di­tional traf­fic of heavy ve­hi­cles that will be in­volved in the construction of the tun­nels. The qual­ity of the water here in the up­per delta will be dev­as­tated by the tun­nels, re­sult­ing in less water for recre­ation, fish­ing, ir­ri­ga­tion and wells.

This area is filled with farm­ing fam­i­lies who will be ru­ined when the water is ru­ined. The re­duc­tion in in­come will mean lo­cal busi­nesses will go un­der. Fish­eries in the San Fran­cisco Bay will be af­fected.

Build­ing a tun­nel sys­tem un­der­neath the delta is some kind of crazy cru­sade by Gov. Jerry Brown. It makes no sense. Su­san Cas­ton Wal­nut Grove

Your editorial’s fi­nal para­graph con­tra­dicts the need for the delta tun­nels by list­ing the real so­lu­tions for shoring up Cal­i­for­nia’s fu­ture water sup­plies: recla­ma­tion, re­cap­ture and re­use.

Th­ese meth­ods and other “soft path” so­lu­tions have been con­clu­sively shown to pro­vide the amount of water needed for Cal­i­for­nia’s fu­ture growth.

There is no need to spend $17 bil­lion (or more) for an un­proven tech­ni­cal fix such as the delta tun­nels. In other words, we need the delta tun­nels like we need a giant hole in the head. Nick Di Croce

Solvang The writer is a se­nior ad­vi­sor to the En­vi­ron­men­tal Water Cau­cus.

Salmon fish­er­men who live and die by water-al­lo­ca­tion de­ci­sions take ex­cep­tion to your as­ser­tion the tun­nels will only al­low water to be di­verted dur­ing wet win­ter storm pulses and that the phys­i­cal in­fra­struc­ture will be only as en­vi­ron­men­tally re­spon­si­ble as the laws and reg­u­la­tions that gov­ern it.

The truth is, water will be taken, as it is now, even when there are no storm pulses and when ev­ery drop is in­stead needed to main­tain or re­store the na­tive wildlife.

In ad­di­tion, the two 40-foot-wide tun­nels, large enough to di­vert the en­tire Sacra­mento River for much of the year, are al­ready far big­ger than what is en­vi­ron­men­tally re­spon­si­ble.

The his­tory of Cal­i­for­nia’s big water projects demon­strates two things: First, only the size of the in­fra­struc­ture can guar­an­tee diver­sion lim­its, and sec­ond, those who op­er­ate the giant water projects can­not be trusted to safe­guard the en­vi­ron­ment and salmon fish­ing jobs in times of drought. John McManus

San Fran­cisco The writer is ex­ec­u­tive di­rec­tor of the Golden Gate Salmon Assn.

As long as the hu­man pop­u­la­tion con­tin­ues to grow, achiev­ing a sus­tain­able water sup­ply will never be pos­si­ble. There is not an in­fi­nite amount of water on the Earth.

At some point the pop­u­la­tion must not only stop grow­ing, but start de­clin­ing. It will hap­pen, and our choices to­day will de­ter­mine whether the process is peace­ful or trau­matic.

Yeah, we need th­ese delta tun­nels, but build­ing them to shore up our water sup­ply is fu­tile with­out mean­ing­ful ac­tion on pop­u­la­tion con­trol. Gregg Ferry


Rich Pedroncelli As­so­ci­ated Press

NEAR COURTLAND, water from the Sacra­mento River would be di­verted into sub­ter­ranean tun­nels.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.