A Look at the Delta through the years and the latest attempt to mess with Nature or Revise the Delta!

    Mission Historic Maps Delta Maps Videos Contacts   Save The Delta   Search     
 
 
INDEX

TIMELINE

SUMMARY

ISSUES

DELTA MAPS

CANAL PLANS

HISTORIC MAPS

1820-1859

1860-1879

1880-1899

1900-1939

1940-1979

1980-1989

1990-1999

2000 DOCS

2001 DOCS

2002 DOCS

2003 DOCS

2004 DOCS

2005 DOCS

2006 DOCS

2007 DOCS

2008 DOCS

2009 DOCS

2010 DOCS

2011 DOCS

2012
Docs


Terms of Use

Delta Facts

Links  






                 Back to Index 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Issues  (Last updated 12/24/2013))
This page and the links provided attempt to summarize most of the major "real" issues or conflicts associated with the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta region, and also some of the fabricated issues created by the water exporters and media to validate decisions alread made.  Issue statement and possible resolutions are the opinion of the webmaster and each individual who cares about the future of this state should take the time to review and determine for himself/herself the best resolution(s) to the issues.  It may be helpful to review the series of pages showing many of the planning maps of the last 110 years!  Delta Maps  See also short videos on select issues
Issues & links to documents related to the issues:           Seismic Risk
Elevations
Computer Modeling
Restoration
Conveyance The BDCP
NorCal Aquifer
Water Flow
Water Use  (5/11/2013)
Water Quality (12/2012)
Water Rights
Water Storage

Delta Flood History
Delta History
Flood Control
Delta Waterways, Navigation& Recreation
Delta Facts vs Fiction (i.e. Incorrect maps and reports)

Wrong maps of the Delta
 Fish Studies

Transportation-Ignoring the Delta in California's 2035 Transportation Plan
Historic Delta Navigation

Timelines & Who has been doing What Planning
Issue or Topic Summary statement and links
      The most important issue is how much water is available for diversion to other areas of the state without further destroying the ecological balance of the Delta and Northern California.  As Northern California rivers, streams and aquifers are drained, native species begin to go extinct, use of  prime farm lands to produce valuable food crops deminish, and the overall value of Northern California economy is negatively impacted in favor for the economies of other areas of the State.

     There are more people in the southern part of the state, which lacks sufficient fresh water.  So the water contractors are simply using political power to take from the north to give to the highest bidder in the south and west of the Delta.  And yes, it is all about the money. 

    How the water is conveyed is not as important as how MUCH  is conveyed.  Some Delta and Bay Area communities are against the tunnels because the cost of building the tunnels will force more pressure on the paying public to take more water than is sustainable for the Northern California environmental and economic health.

Conveyance-Canals-Tunnels
(North vs. South)
Conveyance, canal and tunnel planning maps
Issue:  How much water is available for export from the Sacramento River without full destruction of the Delta ecosystem, including endangered native fish species? 


The media wants you to think it's about tunnels.  The issue is THE WATER!.  How it is conveyed away from the Delta doesn't matter if the end result is elimination of the Delta & its natural ecosystem, farms and recreation!.  The Sacramento River is a highly managed system that on average has no more than 18,000 MAF of flow per year, due to north-of-Delta exports, environmental protection exports, and other factors.  Much of that water is already exported using the Delta Cross Channel and Georgiana Slough as conveyance canals.  Proposals to expand exports to 9,000 cfs 15,000 cfs, if approved, will drain portions of the lower Sacramento River of most of its historic or natural fresh water flow.  There just is not enough water to satisfy the demands of water exporters south of the Delta, and also meet the land and water rights of properties and people within the Delta.  In addition, starting from 2004 to today many sections of the CALFED 2000 "preferred alternative" conveyance plan (renamed several times as Delta Improvements Package (DIP), South Delta Improvement Package (SDIP), North Delta Improvements Package (NDIP), Armored Aqueduct, Freshwater Corridor, Large Owner AXis, Ecosystem Friendly Corridor, Fish Corridor and other creative names).  You can change the name but its all the same plan.  One has to question WHY would the state and the water exporters pay for all this construction happening now and during the last few years if the end goal is not really the CALFED 2000 plan?  Once the CALFED central conveyance plan is completed, and the new huge diversions North of the Delta are complete, there simply will be no logical reason to build the tunnels described in the BDCP 2013 documents!  Look at the water availability historically and figure it out.  There is not enough water to validate the costs.  Period.
Sollutions:  Prohibit use of any of the already-built conveyance facilities until such time as the water quality issues are fully addressed to protect Delta interests and Northern California interests.  Delta interests include not just the irrigation needs for the farmers, but also preserving the navigation waterways and intr-connectedness that is the Delta and as it was when it was first reclaimed.  Determine the minimum fresh water flows for YEAR ROUND, not just when native fish species are around.  Don't suspend the Delta in a drought state, as the non-native aquatic species then invade further degrading the aquatic environment and recreation environment.  Other solutions: here
   
Seismic Risk  (& Delta Earthquake history)
(documents and maps uploaded 8/15/2012)

See also Elevations-Seismic-Subsidence
What seismic risk in the Delta?  No levee has been know to fail from any of the earthquakes in California

Yet the media hype would have us all believe the Delta levees are a sneeze away from failure which would supposedly stop Southern California from getting fresh water for a few months, despite all the above ground and underground water storage areas located in Southern California.  The fall 2013 media hype about earthquakes makes us think a fake levee break or "mistake" of a test, as DWR calls the Jones Tract 2004 levee break, is going to happen in the Delta soon.  Look at the computer modeling from 2003-2006 and you might be able to locate the islands targeted for the next "sunny day" or "mistaken" levee failure.

A study and test conducted in 2011 on Sherman Island failed to make a "test" levee fail.  The media, which is controlled by the water exporters, no doubt, have used the public's fear of earthquakes to fabricate a sense of risk of levee failure.  Of course, an earthquake can happen anywhere, and failure of certain levees would put water quality of exports at risk.  However, its much more likely both Los Angeles area and SF Bay area would receive that feared "big one"...why not focus on limiting development and populations in the high risk areas of California instead?  Update August 2012:  We're told there will be yet another study of how an earthquake might "shake" down a levee, which has not happened in the past.  Please go to the "Seismic Risk" page to see many maps and document links if you want  to review the historical FACTS compared to what the media wants you to believe.  Then ask the following logical questions:

1.  If the risk of earthquakes is HIGHEST in the San Francisco Bay area, (look at the liquification maps) including areas like the Oakland waterfront, San Jose and Santa Clara, WHY are those areas being promoted for high density development-the reason they are after Delta water in the Bay Area?  Ask the same question for LA area:  Why promote high density development in the highest seismic areas of California?
2.  Since Delta levees have never been known to fail as a result of an earthquake, wouldn't the scientists be wiser to spend their time studying WHY the levees haven't failed or liquified?  Perhaps the peat soils of the Delta act as "shock absorbers" or a huge sponge that absorbs the impact of the earthquake movement in the area, so the levees stay intact?  Perhaps engineers could find better methods for creating buildings that can withstand inevitible earthquakes in California by studying what is RIGHT about Delta soils that history shows seems to do just fine in times of earthquakes?
Fish Studies  (pages under construction Sept 2012) Issue:  After over 100 years of studying the fish of the Delta, fish scientists still have not found a way for native fish to survive without fresh water in the Delta....its a long story! 
Water Flow
**10/19/2011 data upload
** 11/28/2011 data upload
** 12/4/2011 data upload
Issue:   Bottomline, its all about the water.  It doesn't matter how the water is exported from the Delta as much as how MUCH water is exported from the Delta, and from what location within the Delta region.  There is not enough fresh water for all the demands of 21st Century California, so one has to "budget" very carefully who gets what water when.  If too much fresh water is taken from the Delta, it will destroy the natural ecological environment, will destroy prime farmland, and put many fish species at risk of extinction.  How much water flows into the Delta? How much water is exported? How much fresh water flows out of the Delta?  Historical review of these questions show there is great confusion regarding Delta waterflow which should be resolved BEFORE any new export operations or construction plans are approved or built. Waterflow calculations  You can also go to the "Computer Modeling" video to see How State Water Contractors will make at least $1.5 billion extra per year by revision of Yolo Bypass flow modeling,  Or the Value of Sacramento River Extra Exports   See the video series "It Depends on Who's Counting"   To see hundreds of documents and maps focused on waterflow: Sacrament River Waterflow
Solution:  Use only waterflow data from before 2000 for consistency and veracity of planning of true effects on the Delta from additional exports. Flow and quality monitoring must ONLY be reported as happening at the specific gate-flow from one area of the Delta can not be added to another area of the Delta for reporting purposes.  Consider alternatives for water storage during years of higher precipitation, to allow for more consitent water export in drier years.
Water Uses Issue:  What does "surplus water" mean and who gets it?  Isn't DWR creating false assurances of freshwater access when it continues to contract for water that does not and never did exist?  Northern California landowners were told in the approval process of the state and federal water development projects from the 1930's to 1980's that only "surplus" water would be taken, to assure that riparian water rights and environmental needs would be protected.  So what happens when DWR later decides to revise what "surplus" water means?
Solution: 
Water Quality Issue:  Export of additional Sacramento River water will result in encroachment of higher salinity water into the prime farm lands of the Delta.  In addition, Export of additional Sacramento River water to other areas of the state will severely impact or destroy up to 500,000 acres of prime Delta farm lands, destroy the natural aquatic environment of the Delta, assure the complete extinction of several native fish species, and potentially degrade the water quality of the entire North Bay, Sacramento and San Francisco aquafers due to reduction in freshwater recharge coupled with an increase in levels of natural and dumped toxins into the remaining waterways of the Delta.  In other words, expect the complete degredation of sections of Northern California fresh water resources.  Special note:  The proposed Delta Plan and the BDCP protect only waterflow for environmental purposes...the documents should be required to also have language protecting waterflow for agricultural and navigation uses per previous assurances from the last 100 years of water planning documents and litigated issues.
Solution:  Include in any new Delta Plan guarantees of fresh water flow sufficient to provide for all existing Delta uses, including farming, navigation and recreation.  Prohibit more than 1 ppt of salinity incroachment beyond a defined point that can not change, such as Chips Island.  Install flow and salinity monitoring gages magaged by NDWA, paid for by water exporters, on each of the original navigable waterways of the Delta, including the Sacramento River "Main Stem-Old River) at least to Sacramento, Steamboat Slough, Sutter Slough, and the San Joaquin River to Stockton.  Prohibit the export of Sacramento River water above export levels of the 1950's when fish species declines became more noted, until such time as the endangered species.  Consistently calculate exported water by one single method for easier tracking and accountability, such as by Acre Feet or Gallons.  Prohibit use of pumps to increase water flow for export-to avoid fish entrainment.  Prohibit resale of transported water that was subsidized by rate payers.  If the water is not needed by the farmer in a particular water year, that water is retained in storage by the state for future use.  Prohibit ALL San Joaquin Valley (to Kern County) farmers from discharging irrigation runoff into canals that would put the runoff into the general conveyance systems or the Delta or San Joaquin River, if such runoff has high levels of selenium or other known toxin.  Charge water exporters and receipients sufficient amounts per acre foot or gallon received such that 75% of the charge covers all costs of conveyance and restoration, and 25% is put into a fund to be managed by Delta land owners for the physical and economic protection of the lands, residents, businesses and towns located within the primary region of the legal Delta.  At any point in time where water quality levels (more than .5 ppt) is detected on any monitored waterway of the Delta, export pumps or flow gates shall be closed until the water quality issue resolves.  Water quality monitoring stations will be placed at each natural waterway of the Sacramento River system, at the point where salinity intruision is most likely to occur.  For major waterways, like the Sacramento River, Steamboat Slough, and the Sacramento Ship Channel, two or three monitors may be required if export pumps or flow stations are located along these waterways.  In such case, water quality monitoring stations would be required approximately 1000 feet below the export facility.
Computer Modeling
*updated 10/19/2011*
Issue:  "If you put Garbage in, won't you just get garbage out?".  Use of computer modeling to determine impacts from proposed actions in the Delta can be an effective tool IF, and only IF, the raw data is input correctly.  When incorrect or false raw data is input, common sense says the output will also be incorrect.  Currently, challenges to data input and output of computer modeling are ignored or explained away by comments like "we're using the best science available".  Since, like historical facts, incorrect raw data imput is a provable and measurable item, it is a matter of time for the legal impacts of use of false data for planning will affect the state agencies and the contractors who generate the false data.  Go to Computer Modeling the Delta
Examples of computer modeling data imput:  How State Water Contractors will make at least $1.5 billion extra per year by revision of Yolo Bypass flow modeling, Waterflow calculations, DRMS Phase 1, Bacon Island-Jones Tract studies
Sollutions: It's complicated!  Many of the studies of the last 10 years may contain incorrect results due to incorrect raw data input.  Review of the studies, identification of the most important studies, and a repeat of the modeling to see if the result is the same should be required.  No decisions affecting the Delta should be made until the computer modeling is verified as accurate.  See the videos regarding computer modeling (Yolo Bypass Big Bucks) and water flow reports (It Depends on Who's Counting) for some suggestions.
Control & Management
(State vs. Federal)
Issue:  The Delta has over 700,000 acres, most of it prime farm land, excellent water recreation areas, and it includes 5 counties of Northern California between San Francisco, Stockton and Sacramento.  Some say there are over 220 different state and federal agencies that have some sort of regulatory control of aspects of the Delta.  The problem is that most of the landowners of the Delta, themselves, have been virtually excluded from the planning processes since about 1995.  The focus has not been "How much more water can we take from the Delta?" but "how much fresh water to we really have to leave in the Delta?  And for what reason?".  If outsiders control the waterflow and Delta lands, they do not have a vested interest in preserving the fresh water flow and eden-like agricultural environment.
Sollutions:  Consider the following: (1) limit water export from the Delta once and for all, and that limit is based on actual available fresh water flow in the primary Delta region, regardless of any diversions north of the Delta-exporters fund the in-delta quality and flow monitoring, which is controlled and managed by in-delta landowner agency; (2) guarantee Delta landowner uses and rights, and provide permanent funding to enforce those guarantees; (3) Define just one agency to work with the five counties to regulate Delta activities; (4) Require that water agencies that receive water transported through the Delta pay 30% of the cost of that water into a Delta fund for Delta-only improvements & management, and for county property tax loss compensation from restored lands; (5) Legislatively make it illegal to sell water rights that require transport of fresh water to an area more than 50 miles from the water right seller; (6) Provide permanent (see #4) funding for the Delta landowners to have their own management and restoration agency staffed only by Delta landowners or their representatives, with the sole purpose to protect Delta land and water assets, landowners, towns, businesses and residents.
Delta Flood History
(Fact vs. Fiction)
Issue:    Delta Flood History
Delta Resources
(State vs. Federal and public vs private)
Issue:
CalFED Issue:  The CALFED preferred conveyance canal/tunnel is almost completed to divert Sacramento River water, but the required restoration projects, and even a plan, and not complete.
The process by which Federal and State agency representatives jointly planned the actions necessary to divert more water away from the Delta.  CalFed has a "conveyance" focus and a "restoration" focus.  The "central conveyance" plan from 2000 has almost been completely built in sections, as regional or local projects, up to and including action in 2011.  There is still no approved "restoration" plan, nor confirmed funding for restoration.  CalFed restoration process is called the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan.
Elevations
(Facts vs. Fiction)
***10-25-2011 data upload
Issue:  The Bay Delta Conservation Plan and DSC-Delta Plan often refer to the elevations of the lands of the Delta.  The problem is that  in many, many important instances the elevations depicted on the maps are WRONG.   Go to Delta Elevation Maps
   
Fish Studies
(native vs immigrants)
Issue:
History-Timelines*** under construction 12/2012 Issue:  Starting approximately 2003, historical facts about the Delta began to be revised.  The most likely reason for revising Delta history might be to validate the planned changes to the Delta, or at least make it more difficult for Delta defenders to challenge the revised Delta data. Sometimes just being silent on a key historical point in time is a way of conveying false data.   However, true Delta history can be easily verified by researching reports, books, maps and other written documents published prior to 2003, and better yet, look at the whole water development history of California.  The problem with using false Delta history is that the studies and "science" that relies of the false data are also therefore false or wrong. (see, for example, Delta Flood History)  Incidents of false Delta data use is both alarming and comical.  Not comical is the legal risk of the scientists, agencies and businesses that use the false data to validate action in the Delta.  Historical Timeline charts have been generated for some of the issues; false historical data initiation by DWR and DWR contractors are noted in the timelines.  The extent to which some media outlets have gone to revise California history is pretty impressive.  Go visit your local library and see if there is a book on California history published before 1998-the older books were replaced with the newer versions which eliminate the truth and substitute altered "facts" to lead the reader to a conclusion the book authors intend.  Here's another example:  When California first became a state, the larger population centers were in San Francisco and Sacramento.  Until the railroads were completed, travel by boat between Sacramento and San Francisco was the preferred and faster means of travel.  Take a look at the recently published book by that is supposed to cover historical travel in California.  What's missing?  The years of sail and steamboat travel on the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River.
Using maps, photos, art and written records, here are some timelines showing the true history of California:
Travel
Water conveyance planning
In-Delta Storage Issue:      In-Delta water storage planning
Invasive Species
(control cost vs. public benefit)
Issue:  The Delta, along with many other important lakes and waterways of the United States, has seen a great increase in invasive plant species that overtake the natural aquatic environment to create a different environment that may not be condusive to life of the native or natural aquatic species of the area.  For example, an aquatic water weed called egeria densa tends to grow where water flow is slower and warmer.  Studies show this weed is very detrimental to the hatching and growth of native fish species like salmon or smelt.  The more fresh water is diverted from the Delta, the less flow is left to get ride of aquatic invasive species.  The only way to control the weed is to remove it manually, as is done in the Tahoe Keys are of South Lake Tahoe, or to treat with pesticides, as was done in 2011 in Discovery Bay in the west Delta area.  As more water is diverted from the Delta, the state and federal agencies will have to deal with the increased cost to combate this and other invasive species.
Maps-revisions
(Fact vs. Fiction)
Issue:  Maps tell a story, in a sense.  When one reviews maps from the last 150 years of California land development, the importance of the Delta region to California's entire economy becomes very apparant.  Review the historical maps, particularily the ones that show the Delta from about 1930 to 1965, when lots of improvements happened, and when the Sacramento and San Joaquin Deep Ship Channels were further improved.  Then look at the planning maps of the last 15 or more years.  The maps tell a story.  Watch the background maps of the nightly news main stations-see any missing waterways of the Delta?  There is a saying that the victor in a war writes the history books.  Online media and a few books dispersed over the last 10 years makes it appear the probable "victor" in the California water wars has already been writing those revised history books.  Its also interesting to note many public libraries in California have been clearing out their older history books of California and putting in the revised history books.  In any case, if you want to see some WRONG maps of the Delta from the agency planning documents from the last 10 years see Wrong maps of the Delta
Transportation & Navigation
Transportation-Ignoring the Delta in California's 2035 Transportation Plan
Historic Delta Navigation
Issue:  Many visitors to the Delta area are frustrated because there are very few road signs, some major cell phone companies, like Verizon, do not work well in the Delta, many GPS services in vehicles confuse Delta island and road names, and even Google maps have been incorrect regarding Delta roads and islands in the past.  In addition, CalTrans installed a new ferry on a major travel corridor for Delta travelers (St. Rt. 84) and the ferry keeps breaking down so now that corrider access is limited to emergency vehicles only.  Navigation in the Delta is being threatened by elimination of historical or natural waterways due to reduction of water flows and increase of silting due to the reduction is water flows.  And some historic waterways are simply eliminated from modern maps...in fact, the whole Delta is non-existent in news weather media often, and the California Transportant planning for the 21st Century definately apprears to reduce Delta navigation importance, and reduce Delta road access.
Ownership Rights & Eminent Domain State and Federal agencies are proposing, and taking, actions that result in the elimination of basic land owner rights under both the state and federal constitutions.  The sole purpose of the elimination of rights is to control the flow of the fresh water for export purposes.  The state is currently, and will in the future, greatly increase the cost of water to each individual user in the state due to the litigation costs associated with the breach of landowner rights.  The media talks about the cost of building new conveyance...always watch out for the silence.  What about the cost of litigation?  Cost to take the prime farm lands for conveyance and ecological experiments in the Delta and San Francisco Bay?  Cost to defend every legislator who is allowing the proposed diversion of so much water from the Sacramento River that the only result can be substantil further decline of Northern California Bay and Delta ecosystems, and the eventual decline of water quality in the Sacramento Valley aquifer?  What about the cost of the lost imcome from Northern California fishing, recreation and tourism industries?  If the state gets away with this project, billed as the "largest restoration effort" in US history, (its a conveyance project requiring mitigation) will any prime land anywhere in the US be safe from attack and seizure under the guize of "restoration"?  Using ecological wording for a construction project does not change the outcome...a building project.
Recreation      Since California became a state, the Delta area has been a much-loved boating, fishing and water sports recreation area.  There were over 130 marinas within the Delta's legal region in 1990.  As the state moves to effectively control alspects of Delta transportation and activity, the elimination of marinas or access to motorized boating on navigatble waterways continues.  In 2000 the Delta Protection Commission estimated there were 12,000,000 to 14,000,000 boating user days per year in the legal Delta area.  Since the 2013 BDCP uses much lower estimates, it is clear evidence of how the CALFED and BDCP process has already negatively impacted the area-no tunnels needed!  In addition, the latest Delta conveyance plans quote lower navigable waterways total without definding which waterways are eliminated from navigation...or counts shallow water as navigable because canoes and kayaks may visit on occasion.  All this to say, the Delta Plan and BDCP even in the "base case" or current situation descriptions, describe a Delta Recreation environment far different from when the 2000 CALFED ROD began to be implemented.  WHY ARE IMPACTS TO HUMANS IGNORED?
     Use the link to the right to go to the pages providing maps, documents and links to past Delta recreation reports.  Compare the past to what the Delta Plan and BDCP say as of 2013.  Then consider the further impacts to the Delta we love when the central conveyance option (under construction now) along with a tunnel option are completed, if they are.  Then consider where the Sacramento River water will go...to desert farms that are reported to export more than 90% of their produce out of the country, or to urban communities that could better become water-independent by developing use of atmospheric water generators for individual households.
     The latest versions of the Delta "economic sustainability" make an assumption that farm stands in various parts of the Delta might make up for some of the economic losses from elimination of the boating recreation facilities.  yea, right.  A person who goes to a farm stand goes to the closest one to their home and spends between $10-$15.  The average boater spends more than $50 per day and if fishing is involved, add that cost, too.  If camping overnight or staying in a local hotel or cottage rental, add that too.  Food, ice, gas.  It adds up.  Does anyone honestly think farm stands (which are great, by the way) will replace boating recreation income to the area?

On a different subject, there are plans proposes to use government-owned lands on Sherman Island to promote agri-tourism and ecotourism as if these activities will replace the lost income from destruction of prime Delta Farm Lands and elimination or revision of more than 30% of the navigable waterways, which would be downgraded to shallow habitat areas accessible by canoe or kayak only.  Perhaps if the entire Delta became a wine region to compete with the Napa and Sonoma valleys, it might replace the boating recreation dollars that will be lost to the area...  The other issue is that many different officials from DWR and other state agencies have said state owned lands will be used first for restoration projects...so Sherman Island is supposed to be used for restoration, not recreation.  Or if the state feels that restoration and recreation are compatible joint uses, it might work and the same joint use would need to be recognized as feasible in the other areas of the Delta the state plans to "restore".
Restoration-BDCP Issue:       Bay-Delta Conservation Plan  in 2000 the CALFED Record of Decision was agreed to by the state and water exporters and several major environmental groups.  That plan had a conveyance component and a restoration component.  The conveyance plan is a "central canal" which has been built over several years as regional projects and "joint authority" projects under various names.  Add up all the projects and its still the central conveyance plan, with some modifications or additions as agreed in 2003-2004 by some of the primary state water exporters.  What has NOT been agreed to is the "conservation" portion of the BDCP;  there are many proposals but the effects on the Delta econsystem and water quality and water flow within the Delta are at risk from BDCP proposals.  Whle environmentalists, fish specialists, courts and locals meet to discuss BDCP restoration options, the building of the central conveyance alternave continues.  Go ahead and take a drive around the Delta.  Ignore the names put on projects...just look at a few of the conveyance maps from 2000-2004 and then take a drive.  Notice the levee improvements going on along the different forks of the Mokelumne River?  Notice the application for lot line adjustment/levee setbacks for places like Dead Horse Island?  Notice the huge fish screen/water pumps facility in Freeport?  Notice the new water siphon facility under construction at the southern end of Empire Tract?  Notice the change to Antioch's water diversion locations?  Notice the Intertie completion?  Notice the improvemetns of bridges on Twin Cities Road and Hood Road?  Notice the work at McCormack/Williamson Tract?  Notice how the latest DWR documents list Bacon Island as targeted for in-Delta water storage along with other possible islands to be used to capture excess fresh water flow in excess years?  Please see the video on the CalFed Name Game and review the documents if you need maps for reference as you drive around the Delta.  As to the "restoration" plans, the targeted areas of the Delta are targeted because they could be severly impacted by the diversion of a majority of the fresh water of the Sacramento River...hide the impacts of diversion by the "restoration" plans seems to be the method of choice for development of reports or studies validating the targeted restoration areas.  (Personal opinion)
Seismic Risk What seismic rish?  No levee has been know to fail from any of the earthquakes in California.  A study and test conducted in 2011 on Sherman Island failed to make a "test" levee fail.  The media, which is controlled by the water exporters, no doubt, have used the public's fear of earthquakes to fabricate a sense of risk of levee failure.  Ofr course, an earthquake can happen anywhere, and failure of certain levees would put water quality of exports at risk.  However, its much more likely both Los Angeles area and SF Bay area would receive that feared "big one"...why not focus on limiting development and populations in the high risk areas of California instead?
Steamboat Slough & Ryer Island  
Water Quality & Toxins  
Water Rights Pending...should landowners with no vested water rights have priority over those with long standing water rights, just because the ones without water rights have more money to control the political process?  It the revision of common law and state property rights law is modified by the cumulation of the various aspects of the new "Delta Plan", wouldn't the same change to other property rights be coming next?
Wrong Delta Maps
Pages of sample wrong maps and
Graphics and photo captions
ISSUE:  If Delta Planners can't even figure out the correct names for Delta islands and waterways, and have lost sight of true Delta history, what business do they have determing the Delta's future?  Frankly, Its pretty shocking to note how many official and "final" documents reltated to Delta studies have been wrong on basic, verifiable, historic FACTS about the physical locations studied, or about the actual history of the locations.  If the planners regarding the Delta don't even know its actual physical location, soils, elevations, history, population and importance to the California economy, what business do they have proposing a REVISION to the existing Delta configuration?  Do California legislators and taxpayers feel confident in the drafters of the reports and studies publishing false Delta data, despite the obvious mistakes made?  One needs to look at motives for the false data published, as not all false data was "mistakes".
RESOLUTION:  Prohibit any changes to the Delta until such time as the faulty studies and reports are corrected and published, after review by independent persons with no vested financial interest in the outcomes.  In addition, the costs of correction of reports and studies shall be paid for by the person or corporation that published the false data in the report, not paid for by taxpayer funds.  In addition, corporations or independent contractors that published false data or maps regarding the Delta in the last 10 years will be prohibited from contracting for any government agency project for a period of at least 5 years, to discourage future rash publication of false data.
Who is who when where and why  
 
 Index Summary 
Compiled by Delta citizens and Delta Voices Last Modified :01/15/14 04:34 PM Copyright 2009-2013 ,