RV Sites
Tent Sites


About Snug
About Delta

To Do

Historic Delta



After reviewing the whole website, please contact us
if you have additional
questions...we try to get
back to you within 24

DWR reporting of inflow and outflows for the computer modeling used as baselines for the BDCP: review of what water has actually been left to outflow to the Suisun and San Francisco Bay.  These comments relate to Chapter 1, conveyance planning and Chapter 3, restoration planning and impacts:   (See BDCP Index)
The questions I ask regarding BDCP waterflow baselines are important because using incorrect or false baseline fresh water outflow data for the Sacramento River system will have a negative effect on the computer modeling outcomes or predictions for salinity encroachments, water quality of remaining North, Central and South Delta water, and changes actual export data compared to reported export data. 
Graphics for presentations: georgianaflow2014.pdf georgianamissingwater2014.pdf   cdecdatagaps.pdf georgianaflowsummary.pdf  unaccountedforwater.pdf  water-bdcp-questions-lg.pdf  bdcpbaselinevscalsim.pdf  Where’s the Water.pdf 
Question 1.   When developing CALSIM and CALSIM ll, did DWR use its own conversion chart and formulas as found in the 2000 Water plan or did DWR and/or its consultants use USGS conversion formula?  (1 & 2 of 3 videos)  on "It depends on who is counting" and

Question 2: DWR made mistakes in reporting Delta exports and Delta outflow in the 2013 California Water Plan, which reported exports for the last 15 years and indicated there was unaccounted for exports, isn’t it logical to assume the BDCP also used that same flow and export data which, just like the 2013 California Water Plan chart, needs to be reviewed so the reported data can be corrected?  (See “Unaccounted for water flow” on Youtube:

video graphics pdf:

more at

Question 3

Do the BDCP flow reports, graphics and outcomes include, or account for, the flow data gaps as established from just a two week review of flow data for the North Delta waterways and if not, doesn’t that indicate the baseline computer modeling for flow and impacts to the North Delta must be wrong?  (See Sacramento, Sutter and Steamboat data gaps) 

Youtube: graphics at:

Question 4

Do the BDCP flow reports, graphics, computer models and outcomes include, or account for, the flow data gaps or unexplained missing water flow on Georgiana Slough in April over the last several years?  Could the flow data gap in April be the cause of the dead oaks along the banks of lower Georgiana Slough or is salinity intrusion from groundwater or backflow from the San Joaquin River affecting the oak trees of lower Georgiana Slough banks?  (See Georgiana Slough exports  )

Question 5:

When developing flow and salinity modeling like DSM2 and RMA, did the models assume there would be an in-stream barrier placed in the Sacramento River at the head of Steamboat Slough, east of the Steamboat Slough bridge, that blocks freshwater inflow into Steamboat Slough, as it appears such an in-stream barrier was already placed approximately 30 to 50 feet east of the bridge several years ago?  Was the purpose of this in-river 8-10 foot high flow barrier placed to manipulate the outcome of the salmon migration studies or to divert more fresh water into Georgiana Slough for export to other areas of the state?  open:  georgianaflowsummary.pdf

Question 6

Did the persons developing DSM2, RMA and other Delta-related computer models for flow and exports and impacts know or modeled for the fact that Georgiana Slough had been dredged deeper than in the past, while in-river berm seems to have been installed or developed across the Sacramento river just below the Georgiana Slough confluence with the Sacramento River, which tends to direct more flow than the models reported for flow splits?  Wouldn’t the in-river modifications on both Georgiana Slough and the Sacramento River create a gravity-flow situation where even more fresh water from the Sacramento River would be diverted into the San Joaquin River system than had been modeled and reported?  Wouldn’t that also result in less freshwater outflow on lower Sacramento River, Steamboat and Sutter Sloughs, thereby allowing higher risk of saltwater intrusion into those waterways and the North Delta that recognized by the computer models used for decision making for the BDCP actions?


Question 7

 When inputting the raw data for CALSIM, CALSIM ll, DSM2, RMA and other computer modeling, was the use also planned for in-delta water wells for the new horizontal fracking method already being used in the Delta?  Besides the issue of increased in-delta water use from fracking, was the seismic risk associated with fracking considered when the state of California leased out the beds of sections of navigable waterways to gas exploration companies as the seismic risk could cause levees to fail which could also cause further water quality issues while putting humans at risk? (See fracking the Delta timeline)  Youtube:


Why is this important?  The combination of the actions of the BDCP and horizontal fracking in the Delta will destroy our drinking water aquifers in the areas of Sacramento, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Solano and Yolo at a minimum!



Fracking and the BDCP:  (Chapter 3 of BDCP restoration proposals)

Does the BDCP restoration proposal correlate to the aeas where natural gas fracking is happening or about to commence?

Fracking and restoration nexus

What is fracking?

2001 gas and oil map

By 2009

Slc permits

This page has been added to provide more documentation related to the excel spreadsheet used to determine the "missing flows" from water years 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.  All numbers used in the analysis came directly from charts and data provided by DWR or the other agency as noted in the link provided in the screen prints.  Screen prints were gathered again on 2/24, 2/25 and 2/26 to verify the data is still showing online.  Please click on the posters thumbnails to see larger versions of each poster.  I suggest you use the pdf link if you want to be able to enlarge and view the maps and links contained in the posters more closely.  I have also added a poster showing some of the past inflow and outflow maps compared to the maps of the 2013 updated California Water Plan which provides three maps to express the inflow and outflow and exports from the Delta.  LOOK closely at those 2010 maps and add up the numbers for yourselves!  Notice how export numbers and reflective arrows have changed.  Look at the detailed wording.  At least DWR is starting to tell the truth, or partial truth, it appears. (click on thumbnails or pdfs to see larger versions).  Scroll down this page to see the individual graphics used for the posters below:
unaccounted_diversions.pdf 2010waterexportssummary.pdf 1960Bulletin_No._76_Delta_Water_Facilities.pdf
Who, exactly, funds the Water Education
Foundation and why in 2012 did their map
show the above revision to the pathway of
the Sacramento River?
  Snug Harbor Resorts, LLC
3356 Snug Harbor Drive, (& Port Lane, Starboard Lane and Marina View Circle are roads located within the resort grounds)
Ryer Island in Solano County.  near Rio Vista, CA
GPS:   Use Port Lane, Walnut Grove, CA  95690, even though we are located near Rio Vista, Solano County  
  California Delta's Snug Harbor!   Copyright @ 1997-2015