<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Friday’s top of the scroll: California eyes $10.6 billion cost for water tunnel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://aquafornia.com/archives/16525/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://aquafornia.com/archives/16525</link>
	<description>The California Water News blog!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:03:52 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: dfb</title>
		<link>http://aquafornia.com/archives/16525/comment-page-1#comment-23915</link>
		<dc:creator>dfb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:19:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://aquafornia.com/?p=16525#comment-23915</guid>
		<description>These estimates fit with earlier estimates given although I expect the costs to change as more detailed analysis is taken of the different routes.

I think slide 17 is one of the more important slides. It gives construction pros and cons including risk levels for engineering and known/expected issues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These estimates fit with earlier estimates given although I expect the costs to change as more detailed analysis is taken of the different routes.</p>
<p>I think slide 17 is one of the more important slides. It gives construction pros and cons including risk levels for engineering and known/expected issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

