RSS FeedsDredging around the Delta
1.
"Is the proposed peripheral canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta a water giveaway to wealthy Southern Californians, a necessary step to stabilizing the environment around the Delta or something else?"
It's all a show to cover human greed and an inability to control our human population. We control the population of every othe species of life 'for their own benefit,' but not our own. Isn't that called hypocritical?
2. The MWD decision to cut, by 30 percent, water for southern California agriculture is the death knell for commercial avocado and citrus production in San Diego County. Some sort of a peripheral canal would presumably provide water for efficient irrigation of these important, if not legacy, California crops. Avocados and citrus cannot be fallowed," for no or reduced summer water availability means no crops. The unintended consequence is that these groves are now being taken out of production, and the incentive returns to turn this land into urban development.
3. Developers and farmers have flocked to the Delta reaping the benefits of ecological restoration donationations from countless water contractors & tax payers. They've been squatting near levees, building homes recklessly, polluting, holding California's water needs hostage for their special interests, then they expect to be compensated and/or bailed out if Delta fails or is re-engineered (alternative conveyance). Enough!! Let's put the interests of the public at large first and build more sustainable water infrastructures.
4. Up to 80% of the water in the Delta comes from Lake Oroville releases & snow pack into Feather River watershed. The Delta basically serves the SWP as an open public & private conveyance system to transfer otherwise pristine Lake Oroville water. The current Delta conveyance system is unsustainable/unreliable (fragile crumbling levees, salt intrusion, fertilizer/pesticides/petroleum contamination, leaks/evaporation losses, uncontrolled land use and regulatory environmental liabilities). If nothing is done, the current Delta will degrade, collapse, and die along with up to 9.2 maf of water for 18 months (DWR'07 Draft Reliability Rpt).
5. We MUST restrict illegal immigration -- this population has overburdened our infrastructre in every way, including water. Now their Mexican electeds demand these people, who have too many kids in squalid apts. and need education and birth control, have us build them subsidized high-density housing in the hills and last open areas. This is worse than putting in a carefully planned project like Las Lomas, which was justly opposed for reasons of water and traffic. We Sierra Club types tend to be too P C to take a logical stand against illegal immigration, esp'ly of uneducated people who don't respect the environment.
6. James is right, 80% of water is wasted by agriculture. We're supposed to worry about waste brushing our teeth, are required to have low flush toilets, while good water is wasted. Agriculture, car washes, watering lawns can/ should be done with reclaimed waste and ocean water. (How much waste water are we DRINKING now -- if drugs are already in our water supply? We need a SAFE and clean vs. commercial use supply.) -- Penalize luxury homes with high-blast showers, a "must" in pricy real estate, AND penalize not reward Valley folk with green lawns.
7. Those folks who continue to think that we can solve California's water "problem" by growing cactus and rock lawns have failed math badly. All of the households and all of the cities and all of the industry, in total, use just 20% of all the water. Agriculture uses 80% where it is wasted in flooding fields and open air sprinklers. Try as you might, you simply cannot get major savings out of a small part of 20%. A legislative package that re-prices California water and contains loans to farmers to convert to drip irrigation is the ONLY solution the California's water problem.
8. When I read this discourse I am reminded of the times I lived in Southern California. I would take late or early walks. I would see thousands of gallons of water flow down the drains as sprinkler systems with broken pipes, damaged and misdirected sprinkler heads would repeat the cycle night after night. This would go on for weeks at a time before being corrected. The cities of California, now that metering is mandatory, need to implement a consumption based rates with penalty rates for excess consumption. Like those used for electricity. Conservation is easy. And the revenue could be awesome.
9. 50% to 70% of the water in Los Angeles County (70% in suburban places) goes to irrigation...primarily lawns. Until we transform our gardening practices to reflect the Mediterranean climate where we live, it is not appropriate for us to be taking more water from Northern California or anywhere else. Using Native Plants and xeriscaping techniques could easily cut our water source requirements by 50% -- benefiting the environment locally and up North as well.
10. (pt 2, see pt1 first) Higher flows tend to flush dead stuff, reducing rotting. The smaller organisms that can thrive in turn are consumed, in large part, by small fish, mollusks, insects, small crustaceans. Each of these, in turn, has the potential for feeding other critters. If the water flow slows, the possibility of the water becoming warmer, having less oxygen, becoming too warm and turning stagnant increases. If we divert the water with a peripheral canal, we reduce the water flows and face the possibility of turning the delta into a stinking dead or dying swamp.
Submitted by: Jim
2. The MWD decision to cut, by 30 percent, water for southern California agriculture is the death knell for commercial avocado and citrus production in San Diego County. Some sort of a peripheral canal would presumably provide water for efficient irrigation of these important, if not legacy, California crops. Avocados and citrus cannot be fallowed," for no or reduced summer water availability means no crops. The unintended consequence is that these groves are now being taken out of production, and the incentive returns to turn this land into urban development.
Submitted by: Roy J. Shlemon
3. Developers and farmers have flocked to the Delta reaping the benefits of ecological restoration donationations from countless water contractors & tax payers. They've been squatting near levees, building homes recklessly, polluting, holding California's water needs hostage for their special interests, then they expect to be compensated and/or bailed out if Delta fails or is re-engineered (alternative conveyance). Enough!! Let's put the interests of the public at large first and build more sustainable water infrastructures.
Submitted by: San Jose CA
4. Up to 80% of the water in the Delta comes from Lake Oroville releases & snow pack into Feather River watershed. The Delta basically serves the SWP as an open public & private conveyance system to transfer otherwise pristine Lake Oroville water. The current Delta conveyance system is unsustainable/unreliable (fragile crumbling levees, salt intrusion, fertilizer/pesticides/petroleum contamination, leaks/evaporation losses, uncontrolled land use and regulatory environmental liabilities). If nothing is done, the current Delta will degrade, collapse, and die along with up to 9.2 maf of water for 18 months (DWR'07 Draft Reliability Rpt).
Submitted by: California resident
5. We MUST restrict illegal immigration -- this population has overburdened our infrastructre in every way, including water. Now their Mexican electeds demand these people, who have too many kids in squalid apts. and need education and birth control, have us build them subsidized high-density housing in the hills and last open areas. This is worse than putting in a carefully planned project like Las Lomas, which was justly opposed for reasons of water and traffic. We Sierra Club types tend to be too P C to take a logical stand against illegal immigration, esp'ly of uneducated people who don't respect the environment.
Submitted by: jane
6. James is right, 80% of water is wasted by agriculture. We're supposed to worry about waste brushing our teeth, are required to have low flush toilets, while good water is wasted. Agriculture, car washes, watering lawns can/ should be done with reclaimed waste and ocean water. (How much waste water are we DRINKING now -- if drugs are already in our water supply? We need a SAFE and clean vs. commercial use supply.) -- Penalize luxury homes with high-blast showers, a "must" in pricy real estate, AND penalize not reward Valley folk with green lawns.
Submitted by: jane
7. Those folks who continue to think that we can solve California's water "problem" by growing cactus and rock lawns have failed math badly. All of the households and all of the cities and all of the industry, in total, use just 20% of all the water. Agriculture uses 80% where it is wasted in flooding fields and open air sprinklers. Try as you might, you simply cannot get major savings out of a small part of 20%. A legislative package that re-prices California water and contains loans to farmers to convert to drip irrigation is the ONLY solution the California's water problem.
Submitted by: James W. Taylor
8. When I read this discourse I am reminded of the times I lived in Southern California. I would take late or early walks. I would see thousands of gallons of water flow down the drains as sprinkler systems with broken pipes, damaged and misdirected sprinkler heads would repeat the cycle night after night. This would go on for weeks at a time before being corrected. The cities of California, now that metering is mandatory, need to implement a consumption based rates with penalty rates for excess consumption. Like those used for electricity. Conservation is easy. And the revenue could be awesome.
Submitted by: Bill Ries-Knight
9. 50% to 70% of the water in Los Angeles County (70% in suburban places) goes to irrigation...primarily lawns. Until we transform our gardening practices to reflect the Mediterranean climate where we live, it is not appropriate for us to be taking more water from Northern California or anywhere else. Using Native Plants and xeriscaping techniques could easily cut our water source requirements by 50% -- benefiting the environment locally and up North as well.
Submitted by: Melina Watts
10. (pt 2, see pt1 first) Higher flows tend to flush dead stuff, reducing rotting. The smaller organisms that can thrive in turn are consumed, in large part, by small fish, mollusks, insects, small crustaceans. Each of these, in turn, has the potential for feeding other critters. If the water flow slows, the possibility of the water becoming warmer, having less oxygen, becoming too warm and turning stagnant increases. If we divert the water with a peripheral canal, we reduce the water flows and face the possibility of turning the delta into a stinking dead or dying swamp.
Submitted by: steelhoof
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT