<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: 2014 promises water fight over Delta tunnels	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://calwatchdog.com/2013/12/26/2014-promises-water-fight-over-delta-tunnels/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/12/26/2014-promises-water-fight-over-delta-tunnels/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 16:30:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Eric Johnson		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2013/12/26/2014-promises-water-fight-over-delta-tunnels/#comment-90559</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eric Johnson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Aug 2014 16:30:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://calwatchdog.com/?p=56051#comment-90559</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Living in Northern California and covering the water ways with my job I am concerned about Governor Brown wanting to construct 2 tunnels from Northern California to Southern California.  In my opinion this only puts a band aid on a bigger problem that exists.  Northern California does not receive the rain fall as we did in the past and we are quickly drying up ourselves.  Southern California continues to build with out looking for different alternatives of waste/water and expects everyone to figure it out.  I believe we need to be proactive to the problem and not reactive to our current situation.  Looking at the bigger picture is someone that needs to be addressed.  We are part of the United States.  We are not independent and should be looking at every avenue.  I know I am just one person, but I do vote on a regular basis and would like to think this will be read.  As strange as this sounds I believe we need to look at constructing what is proposed along Route 66 starting in the Eastern United States where it floods every year and costs tax payers/government Billions of dollars in damage.  The floods cause not only damage to property, loss of lives, business&#039;s suffer and the economy goes backwards.  By establishing a waterway from the Mississippi River to Las Angeles we could open up federal funds allowing the Federal Government to fund the project and not California.  Along the route all states could benefit from these tunnels constructing Reservoir&#039;s for each state.  In my opinion we would be finding a permanent solution and not a quick fix.  Increasing agriculture not only in our state, but throughout the U.S.  I understand we are looking at 400 miles vs. and estimated 2500 miles, but this would assist us in solving a problem.  This would provide water to dry states and create jobs along the way boosting the economy.  The government already owns the rights to Highway 66, so the Government would not have to purchase to much land where as the land will have to be purchased in California. If a pipe line for oil can be agreed upon, I am sure we could agree upon a pipe line for water.  

Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to be heard.

Sincerely,

Eric D. Johnson]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Living in Northern California and covering the water ways with my job I am concerned about Governor Brown wanting to construct 2 tunnels from Northern California to Southern California.  In my opinion this only puts a band aid on a bigger problem that exists.  Northern California does not receive the rain fall as we did in the past and we are quickly drying up ourselves.  Southern California continues to build with out looking for different alternatives of waste/water and expects everyone to figure it out.  I believe we need to be proactive to the problem and not reactive to our current situation.  Looking at the bigger picture is someone that needs to be addressed.  We are part of the United States.  We are not independent and should be looking at every avenue.  I know I am just one person, but I do vote on a regular basis and would like to think this will be read.  As strange as this sounds I believe we need to look at constructing what is proposed along Route 66 starting in the Eastern United States where it floods every year and costs tax payers/government Billions of dollars in damage.  The floods cause not only damage to property, loss of lives, business&#8217;s suffer and the economy goes backwards.  By establishing a waterway from the Mississippi River to Las Angeles we could open up federal funds allowing the Federal Government to fund the project and not California.  Along the route all states could benefit from these tunnels constructing Reservoir&#8217;s for each state.  In my opinion we would be finding a permanent solution and not a quick fix.  Increasing agriculture not only in our state, but throughout the U.S.  I understand we are looking at 400 miles vs. and estimated 2500 miles, but this would assist us in solving a problem.  This would provide water to dry states and create jobs along the way boosting the economy.  The government already owns the rights to Highway 66, so the Government would not have to purchase to much land where as the land will have to be purchased in California. If a pipe line for oil can be agreed upon, I am sure we could agree upon a pipe line for water.  </p>
<p>Thank you for the opportunity to allow me to be heard.</p>
<p>Sincerely,</p>
<p>Eric D. Johnson</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: calwatchdog.com @ 2026-04-15 16:24:41 by W3 Total Cache
-->