It's strange though, cause the potential solutions proposed, especially the first, seem like they would be goals of environmental lobbyists, whoever or whatever those are.
> But upgrading the urban wastewater-treatment facilities surrounding the bay would eliminate nutrient pollution, permitting more delta water to be directed to California’s farms and cities—a lot more water.
The main reason for "flushing" fresh water into the delta is to preserve the delta ecosystem. Without putting fresh water in the river, the salt water from the Bay works its way up the delta.
I tried a few searches to understand whether this wastewater issue is real or not, and the main "nutrient pollution" issue that comes up is not human waste, but instead fertilizer runoff from agriculture [1,2].
Upgrading wastewater treatment sounds great, but overall this author just doesn't seem to be honest.
[1] https://ucanr.edu/sites/DRAAWP/files/358402.pdf [2] https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2845
I guess it's probably pretty complicated to decide what solution would have the least environmental impact/or the one with the most desired outcome in this case.
That's why I consider the article to be so deceptive.
I think you're probably right about this. It does seem a bit misleading now.