tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236405782975490260.post1285781895919375986..comments2024-03-20T22:55:32.772-07:00Comments on Valley Economy: Additional thoughts and information regarding my Delta Tunnels op-ed in the Sunday Sacramento BeeJeffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10344751623916759400noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236405782975490260.post-51189142016342506242015-08-11T10:40:47.056-07:002015-08-11T10:40:47.056-07:00Greg, thanks for your comments. I have never hear...Greg, thanks for your comments. I have never heard of the Alaska water pipeline proposal, but it doesn't sound very feasible, even in a drought - the difference in value between a gallon of oil and a gallon of water is vast - and I can't see how a long-distance pipeline would make sense. I have heard people advocate floating water bags, which sounds like better technology if we were really going to transport water from Alaska. But I don't think any of these extreme ideas for long-distance transport are necessary.Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10344751623916759400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236405782975490260.post-46336013791867288712015-08-10T23:53:23.821-07:002015-08-10T23:53:23.821-07:00Hi Jeff, wonderful article, thanks for such a thou...Hi Jeff, wonderful article, thanks for such a thoughtful read. I have seen you speak on many occasions at the San Joaquin Hispanic Chamber mixers, and I always enjoy your insight.<br /><br />Have you heard about the Alaska pipeline proposal from 1980's Alaskan governor Wally Hickel? http://wrd.cm/1ABP0fm<br /><br />The original plan called for four 14-foot diameter pipes running at least 1,400 miles from the mouth of one of southeast Alaska’s monster rivers to one of California’s reservoirs. These would deliver about 1.3 trillion gallons of water a year. <br /><br />In your estimation, would this be feasible? <br /><br />If yes, let's have Jerry commit the $100+ Billion earmarked for the bullet train and build these Alaskan pipes. No more drought. Sound good! :-)<br /><br />Greg<br />Crowdvertise.org<br /><br />SYSOPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01570179672719889558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236405782975490260.post-31990981017678931482015-07-26T21:42:50.428-07:002015-07-26T21:42:50.428-07:00Jane,
Thanks, I had not seen this article about S...Jane,<br /><br />Thanks, I had not seen this article about Santa Barbara in Water Deeply. Here is a reference and a quote: http://www.waterdeeply.org/articles/2015/07/8050/10-questions-joshua-haggmark-santa-barbara-water-boss/ <br /><br />"We currently have state water from the (Sacramento-San Joaquin) Delta. A small portion of our supply comes from there and that uses about 3,200 kilowatt-hours per acre-foot. When looking at desal, it used to use, back in the '90s, a little over 7,000 kilowatt-hours per acre-foot, and the new plant that we are looking at will use 2,400 kilowatt-hours per acre foot."<br /><br />I wasn't expecting the Bee to do a "call out" with the morally outrageous line. In retrospect, maybe the language is too strong, and I am sure I will get some flak for it. But maybe it is necessary to use strong words to call out this point that is rather surprisingly ignored in the water-focused debate. I think most people have never really contemplated the full impacts of an earthquake that would flood 20-30 islands without warning, because the only impact they ever hear about is salt water spoiling the water supply. Most Delta folks don't believe the earthquake scenario, so they don't make this argument and prefer to attack the predictions. They may be right about the risk being overblown, but I think it is important for those hyping the earthquake to address its full impacts. <br /><br />The Delta earthquake nightmare flood scenario so often invoked by the Governor and other tunnel proponents would be a mass casualty event. The DRMS study from the late 2000's estimated hundreds dead - which I believe would make it the deadliest natural disaster in California since the 1906 SF earthquake. Jeffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10344751623916759400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8236405782975490260.post-68406020534170120822015-07-26T11:13:50.395-07:002015-07-26T11:13:50.395-07:00Despite the word limit, I think you made the defin...Despite the word limit, I think you made the definitive case against the tunnels in your op-ed piece. Also, "morally outrageous" is succinct and powerful. <br /><br />You may not be aware of a new drought news aggregator called Water Deeply. Matt Weiser is writing for them. They issue a weekly summary, and the summary for July 25 includes an article about Santa Barbara reviving its desal plant. Santa Barbara's water resource manager says they've done as much as they can to conserve. He says that they use about 3,200 kilowatt hours per acre foot to move SWP water, while they expect the "new" desal plant to use 2,400 kilowatt hours per acre foot. They have an interesting way of dealing with the brine, also. It's a thought-provoking interview. <br /><br />Jane Wagner-Tyack Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10078347271499320368noreply@blogger.com