[env-trinity] Article Submission: Governor Brown makes false claims about tunnel plan during debate

[Dan Bacher]

http://www.fishsniffer.com/blogs/details/kashkari-clashes-with-brown-over-twin-tunnels/

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/09/07/18761244.php

Photo: The Raging Grannies sing at a rally against Jerry Brown's Bay  
Delta Conservation Plan to build the peripheral tunnels at the State  
Capitol on July 29. Photo by Dan Bacher.

800_raging_grannies_again...

Governor Brown makes false claims about tunnel plan during debate

by Dan Bacher

The Republican and Democratic Party establishments have been steadfast  
supporters of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) to build the  
peripheral tunnels, so Neil Kashkari, the Republican challenger to  
Governor Jerry Brown, surprised many when he attacked Brown's tunnel  
plan during the debate in Sacramento on September 4.

Kashkari said, “The Obama EPA is saying your tunnel program is  
fundamentally flawed. That’s your own president, President Obama  
saying that, not me.”

Brown replied: “That doesn’t make it right, by the way.”

The clash began after the debate moderator asked Brown how the tunnels  
project could proceed after the Environmental Protection Agency issued  
a scathing comment letter stating that the tunnels would violate the  
Clean Water Act.

Brown, clearly on the defensive, used the debate to tout the false  
claim that the Delta is uniquely threatened by an earthquake or other  
disaster, even though the exported Delta water goes through hundreds  
of miles of aqueducts and canals in earthquake and disaster prone  
areas to reach its destination.

"We have a Delta system that protects the fresh water that goes to the  
farms, not just to Southern California but to Alameda County and Santa  
Clara County, and that salt water is only protected by dirt levees. We  
have to find a way to make sure the conveyance through the Delta will  
withstand an earthquake or rising sea levels or extreme weather  
events. That’s why for 50 years people have been trying for either a  
peripheral canal or tunnels or some other kind of conveyance," Brown  
contended.

Consulting Engineer Dr. Robert Pyke strongly disagrees with Brown’s  
claim that a peripheral canal or tunnels are needed to “protect” fresh  
water in the Delta. In a letter to the State Water Resources Control  
Board on November 23, 2013, Pyke wrote, “The ‘earthquake bogey’ is a  
red herring that has been used for some years by the Metropolitan  
Water District and others to try to scare people into supporting what  
is now the curiously named Bay Delta Conservation Plan  
(BDCP).” (http:// nodeltagates.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ 
pyke_comments_on_cwap.pdf)

He also noted, “In the unlikely but nonetheless possible event of the  
failure of one or more Delta levees in a major flood, the Delta will  
be awash with fresh water and, while the demand for exports would  
likely be small at that time, there would be no reason for exports to  
be interrupted because of salinity intrusion."

Brown also made the false contention that the Delta tunnels would  
somehow prevent saltwater intrusion into the Delta when a myriad of  
scientific studies and reports, including the recent EPA letter  
slamming the tunnel proposal for potential violations of the Clean  
Water Act, demonstrate that the Delta salinity would increase - and  
freshwater outflows to the estuary would actually decrease - if the  
tunnels were in place.

"If that salt water intrudes, half the water to Silicon Valley will  
disappear in a matter of days. That would be a catastrophe for the  
economy of California and I don’t think this man really understands,"  
opined Brown.

Actually, the EPA diagnosis pointed out that operating the proposed  
conveyance facilities “would contribute to increased and persistent  
violations of water quality standards in the Delta, set under the  
Clean Water Act,” and that the tunnels “would not protect beneficial  
uses for aquatic life, thereby violating the Clean Water Act." (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/08/29/18760890.php 
)

The EPA also criticized the failure to analyze upstream/downstream  
impacts and observed that there is broad scientific agreement that  
“existing freshwater flow conditions in the San Francisco Estuary are  
insufficient to protect the aquatic ecosystem and multiple fish  
species, and that both increased freshwater flows and aquatic habitat  
restoration are needed to restore ecosystem processes in the Bay Delta  
and protect native and migratory fish populations.”

Brown also used the discussion of the tunnels during the debate to  
promote the water bond, Proposition 1, a measure that is strongly  
opposed by a broad coalition of fishing groups, environmental and  
consumer organizations and the Winnemem Wintu Tribe.

Brown stated, "But I’m telling you the way we protect the water in the  
middle of California and in the south while balancing what is right  
for the north and the water rights of the Northern California rights- 
holders, it’s going to take something like the Proposition 1 that will  
be on your ballot (in November) and, by the way, I hope people will  
vote for Proposition 1, the water bond.”

The California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA) and other  
environmental and fishing groups strongly disagree with Brown's  
contention that Proposition 1 would "protect the water in the middle  
of California and in the south while balancing what is right for the  
north and the water rights of the Northern California rights-holders."

On September 2, the CSPA released a 14-Point Statement of Opposition  
to Proposition 1. After reviewing the provisions of the Water Quality,  
Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014, the group concluded  
that Proposition 1 "represents a grave and insidious threat to core  
environmental values and principles buttressing protection for  
fisheries and the environment."

"Among the numerous reasons the water bond is bad for California is  
that Proposition 1 undermines: the public trust doctrine by purchasing  
water the public already owns, at inflated prices, to protect the  
public’s rivers and environment; the principle of beneficiary pays by  
subsidizing projects that benefit special interests and the core  
principle that projects should be responsible for mitigating their  
adverse impacts," according to CSPA.

Furthermore, CSPA says Proposition 1 paves the way for a new era of  
big dam building; is a pork-filled barrel of special interest  
subsidies, including BDCP; provides little near-term drought relief;  
eliminates public oversight; crowds out other critically needed  
investments in roads, schools and public health and safety; is  
fiscally irresponsible and sabotages efforts to meaningfully address  
California’s continuing water crisis.

“Proposition 1 is a poster-child of why California is in a water  
crisis; it enriches water speculators but accomplishes little in  
addressing the drought, solving California’s long-term water needs,  
reducing reliance on the Delta or protecting our rivers and  
fisheries," said CSPA Executive Director Bill Jennings. "When the  
public focuses a critical eye on Prop. 1, they’ll realize that it’s  
just another expensive pork-filled gift basket to special interests.”

Opponents of Proposition 1 include the CSPA, the Pacific Coast  
Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, San Francisco Crab Boat  
Association, Restore the Delta, Center for Biological Diversity,  
California Water Impact Network, Food & Water Watch, Southern  
California Watershed Alliance, South Delta Water Agency, Central Delta  
Water Agency, Concerned Citizens Coalition of Stockton, Winnemem Wintu  
Tribe, Small Boat Commercial Salmon Fisherman’s Association and  
numerous other fishing, environmental, water and civic organizations.

As the November election draws closer and closer, you can expect Jerry  
Brown, a strong supporter of the environmentally destructive practice  
of fracking, to deliver more Pinocchio lines about the budget-busting  
peripheral tunnels and Proposition 1.

To read the complete 14-Point Statement, go to: http://www.calsport.org

Here is the transcript of the section of the debate focusing on the  
peripheral tunnels, courtesy of Alex Breitler of the Stockton Record (http://blogs.esanjoaquin.com/san-joaquin-river-delta/#sthash.8zSY2UDw.dpuf 
)

Brown: “I’ve lived in Southern California and I have a ranch in  
Northern California. I was born in San Francisco. It is true a lot of  
our water is in the north, and a lot of the people are in the south.  
That’s why my father passed Proposition 1 on the 1960 ballot and  
that’s been a marvel for California. It has created jobs and abundant  
agriculture, ranking California No. 1 in fruits and vegetables. But we  
have a problem here. We have a Delta system that protects the fresh  
water that goes to the farms, not just to Southern California but to  
Alameda County and Santa Clara County, and that salt water is only  
protected by dirt levees. We have to find a way to make sure the  
conveyance through the Delta will withstand an earthquake or rising  
sea levels or extreme weather events. That’s why for 50 years people  
have been trying for either a peripheral canal or tunnels or some  
other kind of conveyance. We now have a plan and the plan is going  
through the environmental impact process. Very extensive. 75,000 pages  
of analysis. It’s not cooked yet. We’re still taking comments. So over  
the next year we will go over that and look for if anyone else has  
another suggestion. But I’m telling you the way we protect the water  
in the middle of California and in the south while balancing what is  
right for the north and the water rights of the Northern California  
rights-holders, it’s going to take something like the Proposition 1  
that will be on your ballot (in November) and, by the way, I hope  
people will vote for Proposition 1, the water bond.”

Kashkari: “I’m very concerned about the tunnels. $25 billion for these  
tunnels and the Obama administration has serious concerns. Look, if  
you look at Gov. Brown’s legacy of infrastructure projects — take the  
Bay Bridge, many billion dollars over budget, many years late — if  
that’s the track record this thing is going to cost $50 or $75 billion  
by the time we’re done with it. I’m an aerospace engineer. When I look  
at a big engineering project that’s way over budget and way over- 
delayed I have real concerns about mismanagement. I’m not going to  
plow ahead with $25 to $50 billion into the tunnels. We’re going to  
put a brake on it, study it and make sure we get it right.”

Moderator John Myers: “So no tunnels?”
Kashkari: “No tunnels.”

Myers: “And no tunnels, then, governor?”

Brown: “This has been on the table for 50 years. If that salt water  
intrudes, half the water to Silicon Valley will disappear in a matter  
of days. That would be a catastrophe for the economy of California and  
I don’t think this man really understands — ”

Kashkari: “The Obama EPA is saying your tunnel program is  
fundamentally flawed. That’s your own president, President Obama  
saying that, not me.”

Brown: “That doesn’t make it right, by the way.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20140908/b57ed88d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 800_raging_grannies_against_the_tunnels.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 325068 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20140908/b57ed88d/attachment.jpg>