≡ Categories

LA Times: California is re-routing delta tunnel system to land preserve

In case you missed it…

Los Angeles Times

California is re-routing delta tunnel system to land preserve

By Bettina Boxall
August 15, 2013, 8:13 p.m.

The state is moving the route of a proposed tunnel system in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta away from north delta communities to a land preserve that is an important winter home for the greater sandhill crane and other migratory birds in the Pacific Flyway.

The realignment, announced Thursday by the California Natural Resources Agency, is intended to lessen the project’s effects on north delta residents who have complained fiercely about the proposal – in some instances refusing to let state survey crews on their property.

But the changes are stirring a new set of concerns that a project that aims to improve fish and wildlife habitat will turn a portion of a bird refuge into a noisy construction site for five years.

The tunnels are at the core of a proposal to re-engineer the way the state and federal water projects divert water from the delta and send it south to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

A new diversion point on the Sacramento River in the north delta would connect to two underground tunnels leading to existing export facilities in the south delta. More than 100,000 acres of fish and wildlife habitat would also be restored in the delta, which is a maze of agricultural islands and water channels that empty into San Francisco Bay.

The redesign shifts the northern portion of the tunnel system a few miles to the east, away from the towns of Hood and Courtland and closer to Interstate 5. It also shortens the tunnel’s length by five miles, to 30 miles, and slashes the size of a water storage area near the diversion point from 750 acres to 40 acres.
 
The redesign cuts the footprint of permanent facilities by about half, to 1,851 acres, and moves some land uses from private to state-owned lands.

“The impacts to the delta are real. They are of concern to us,” said Natural Resources Secretary John Laird, adding that the state met with local elected officials and landowners. “We’re looking at ways … that we can accommodate them.
 
But he said the changes, some of which were made for engineering reasons, were unlikely to reduce the cost of the $24-billion project.

While the realignment may please some individual landowners, it is unlikely to quiet delta protests. Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of Restore the Delta, a vocal anti-tunnel group, called the redesign “a failed attempt” to show that the project’s architects “are sensitive to delta communities.”

And the rerouting sends the tunnels under Staten Island, which was purchased by the nonprofit Nature Conservancy 12 years ago with $30 million in state bond money to provide sandhill crane habitat.

State officials said that every effort would be made to keep construction activity away from sandhill sites. Laird noted that the delta restoration program is intended to improve habitat for dozens of species, including the sandhills.
 
But a construction shaft would be built on the island, along with a road. Nearly 1,300 acres of the 9,290-acre island would be used to stockpile excavated material from the tunnel bores.

About 15% of the greater sandhills that winter in the Central Valley stay on Staten, often returning year after year to the same parts of the island. “They just don’t go anywhere,” said Mike Sweeney, the conservancy’s California executive director.

“That’s why this is a pretty serious situation,” he said. “If it’s going to cause major damage to sandhill cranes, that’s a flyway issue.”

Sweeney said his organization would work to protect its interests on the island, but acknowledged that “at the end of the day, the state has eminent domain” and could condemn the property.
 

[email protected]

Leave a Comment

Cancel reply

{ 2 comments… add one }
  • Lorna Friedel Olagaray
    August 16, 2013, 9:25 pm

    This proposed “realignment” simply revisits the same area being proposed a few years ago when the tunnel project was a canal project, and we landowners “closer to I5” protested fiercely as well, refusing to let state DWR officials on our properties to survey.

    This is nothing more than a way to avoid such fierce opposition by placing the project on state-controlled ground…ground that was paid for with $32,000,000 taxpayer dollars, mind you, for the preservation of wildlife habitat, most significantly sandhill cranes.

    Staten Island is owned by the Nature Conservancy and “a permanent conservation easement covers the entire island” to quote the Sacramento Bee; what part of “permanent” does DWR not understand? Unfortunately, it is DWR that holds title to and monitors compliance with the easement.

    So first the State attempts to fly under the radar by putting the massive diversion of our water underground – out of sight, out of mind – by switching the crazy canal project to an insane tunnel project. Then the switch from private lands to public lands, hoping that their tactics will go largely unopposed by private interest and refocusing the discussion on “where it should be located” rather than whether it should be built at all.

    The focus MUST remain on the fact that our government is attempting a massive water-grab at the expense of the California Delta, one of this beautiful State’s most valuable resources.

    The debate must remain firmly centered on the feasibility of continuing to attempt to satisfy the thirst of the arid and highly populated portions of this State at the expense of the Delta. There has to be a more economically and ecologically sound solution to adequate water supply for all. We must refocus this State’s efforts and financial resources on CONSERVATION, water treatment and RECLAMATION with our combined wills, intelligence and INNOVATION, not by allowing areas with low freshwater resources but ample wealth to simply take it via this massive, untested, hastily re-designed proposed project, the scope of which simply begs for unseen consequences and unimagined impediments that will continue to impact the lives and well-being of Delta residents and wildlife for decades to come. It won’t be pretty. STOP THE MADNESS. STOP THE TUNNELS.

  • Catherine Seymour
    August 17, 2013, 7:32 pm

    I am a wildlife artist, always enjoyed waterfowl, painting ducks and geese, I also work at the North Delta Wildlife Conservancy on Tyler Island, which is adjacent to Staten Island..I have seen a lot of wildlife and Sandhill Cranes on my way out to the duckling rescue of which I have been a volunteer for two years now- Of all the places I could go- I chose the Delta to be close to nature for it’s raw wild natural beauty!
    Just from this perspective, it deserves to be appreciated! I don’t want to see another Owen’s Valley! It appears that is the direction this proposal is going!…Having lived in Southeast Ak, I have seen the whole migratory flyway of ducks, geese, and swans, and can appreciate that it has been this way long before we were born! How come all we humans know is how to rape the earth?