Correcting assumptions of Sites project

Matt Tennis surprised me with his inaccurate description of the Sites project. The updated/downsized plans range between 1.3-1.5 MAF, not “1.8”. The annual yield would only be 243,000 a/f. https://www.chicoer.com/2020/05/11/massivenorthern-california-reservoirproject-scaled-back-to-reducecosts/ The legal commitments to maintain Delta water quality are hardly “sentimental.” These inadequately enforced regulations have already prioritized supply over ecosystems. The flow regulations are needed to protect municipal and industrial, agricultural, and fish and wildlife uses. If saltwater intrudes too far into the Delta, it can make the water unusable. The collapse of the Bay-Delta ecosystem should raise alarms that over-allocated water deliveries are putting California’s complex water system in jeopardy.

While Sites would use some existing infrastructure it would require building additional expensive canals, pipelines, pumping stations, and, of course, several dams. Tennis ignores water quality issues raised by Jerry Boles, the retired Chief of the Water Quality Section of the Northern District of the Department of Water Resources.

“The high concentrations of metals likely to occur in the proposed reservoir will impact most, if not all, beneficial uses of the proposed project, including agricultural supply, wildlife and fisheries, and drinking water supplies for communities that divert water from the Sacramento River.”

But it comes as no surprise that Tennis supports Sites. He has a record of pressing boards to rapidly adopt other controversial positions such as opposing student-protecting COVID masks and supporting the nascent Tuscan Water District.

— Jim Brobeck, Chico