≡ Categories

Somebody didn’t get the memo

Before looking at the agency comments on the environmental documents, we wanted to share this interesting little inconsistency. We found the following in a tiny footnote related to the Preferred Alternative (the 9,000 cfs tunnels) in the BDCP EIR/EIS Administrative Draft (page 3-16, a):

“The Dual Conveyance water delivery system would consist of the new north Delta diversion facilities and the existing SWP/CVP export facilities in the south Delta. The north Delta diversion would be the primary diversion point using specific operating criteria and would be operated in conjunction with the existing south Delta diversion. The existing south Delta diversion would only operate on its own when the north Delta diversion is nonoperational during infrequent periods for maintenance or repair” (emphasis added).

OK. Now let’s compare this to the BDCP Proposed Action (the 9,000 cfs tunnels) in the BDCP Administrative Draft, Table 9-3, page 9-14: Average Annual Water Deliveries 4.71-5.59 MAF; North Delta: 49%; South Delta: 51%

So are they going to export from the South Delta 51% of the time, or only when they shut down the tunnel operation for “infrequent” repairs?

And whatever it is that we’re missing here, shouldn’t they clarify it?

Leave a Comment

{ 0 comments… add one }