“Will Peripheral Canal Be Considered After the August Recess?”
Article by Steve Evans
The controversial Peripheral Canal may or may not be included in a package of water bills that the Legislature expects to take up after its arduous budget battle and the August recess. The water package will likely propose an appointed council or water master to manage water operations, provide overall direction for ecosystem restoration, and attempt to implement the Governor’s goal of reducing water use by 20%. Some capitol insiders claim that the package will not expressly authorize the giant canal, which will divert massive quantities of fresh water around the beleaguered estuary for export to the southern Central Valley and southern California.
It is also unclear whether this initial water package will include funding mechanisms, either in the form of a proposed multi-billion dollar general obligation bond (essentially borrowing money in the name of the taxpayers) and/or water fees. The cost of a Peripheral Canal could be at least $10 billion. New or enlarged dams needed to supply water to the canal will cost billions more. Funding is usually the key to California’s convoluted water politics since the typical goal is to get the taxpayers to pay for the water from which only a few benefit.
Even if the water package doesn’t explicitly authorize construction of the controversial Peripheral Canal, it is certainly intended to enable its construction. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a strong proponent of the canal and he believes that it can be constructed without the express authorization of the Legislature.
Whatever the Legislature’s Democratic majority intends to do about water, you can be sure that the Republican caucus will withhold support unless the package also includes authorization and funding for new or enlarged dams. Dams on the Republican’s “must do” list include the enlargement of that Shasta Dam, the Sites Offstream Reservoir in the Sacramento Valley, and the Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River. These expensive dams would produce relatively little new water and will significantly impact the environment.
The original Peripheral Canal was rejected by voters in a statewide referendum in 1982. Large state and federal pumps continue to take about 40% of the fresh water from the Delta for export south. These “through Delta” exports have more than tripled over the last 50 years, reversing flows in Delta channels, degrading water quality, and driving Delta fisheries towards extinction. Many believe that the canal will simply facilitate increased water exports to powerful agribusiness interests, which already use 80% of the developed water in the state.
Southern California developers and southern Central Valley agribusiness are pushing for a canal as wide and as long as the Panama Canal. Some misguided legislators and a few conservation organizations believe that a canal could actually benefit the Delta ecosystem and its endangered fish species. But numerous court decisions have proven that the government’s track record in operating water projects in compliance with environmental laws is less than stellar. There is no reason to assume that the canal, if built, will be operated differently.
There are serious questions as to whether the Peripheral Canal will benefit the Delta’s ecosystem, fisheries, and water quality. The Public Policy Institute of California determined that there is only a 50% likelihood that the Sacramento River salmon population, which is the mainstay of the commercial salmon fishing industry in California and southern Oregon, will remain viable with a Peripheral Canal. The same report found only a 40% likelihood that the Delta smelt would remain viable with a canal.
A recent scientific evaluation of the draft Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, which is closely tied to the canal proposal, found that the benefits of Delta habitat restoration may be off-set by the negative impacts of the Peripheral Canal diversion on Sacramento River salmon. The same report indicated that the canal would do little to improve south Delta water quality or the survival of San Joaquin River salmon population.
Delta farmers and communities fear that the canal will leave the estuary a lifeless cesspool. They are working with conservation organizations and anglers to ensure protections for the Delta in whatever water package that may emerge from the Legislature. This unusual alliance staged a rally for the Delta on the Capitol steps in early July that featured every state legislator representing the region and drew more than a hundred participants, all calling for an open and deliberate debate over the canal and the state’s water issues.
The fact is that California has a water management problem, not necessarily a water supply problem. Every region of the state needs to become more self-sufficient in terms of its water supply and Delta exports must be reduced. This is not nearly as difficult as some believe since state and federal exports from the Delta account for only about 12% of the state’s overall water supply. Numerous studies prove that wise investments in water conservation, recycling/reclamation, and improved groundwater management is far cheaper and will produce far more water than building new dams and an expensive and controversial canal.
California already has 1,400 major dams choking our rivers and hundreds of miles of canals, which divert so much water that our rivers and the Delta are all but drying up. The Legislature needs to break its fixation on this 19th century solution (concrete) and focus on those 21st century options that are cost effective, widely supported by the public, and are best for the environment.
Steven L. Evans is Conservation Director of Friends of the River, California’s statewide river conservation organization.
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/07/will_peripheral.html
“New Peripheral Canal Analysis Reveals Project to be Dysfunctional Scheme”
Article by Dan Bacher profiles Bill Jennings’, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (CSPA), excellent summary of the Contra Costa Water District’s analysis of the proposed peripheral canal:
New Peripheral Canal Analysis Reveals Project to be Dysfunctional Scheme
by Bill Jennings
The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) recently analyzed the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) studies that have been conducted to date and reached the same conclusions as CSPA’s analysis revealed: A Peripheral Canal is a dysfunctional unworkable scheme that will exacerbate existing conditions.
It should be remembered that the PPIC report that is used to justify a Peripheral Canal concluded that a dual-conveyance system would be a disaster for fisheries (20-50% chance of survival of salmon as a species and 10-40% chance that Delta smelt would survive). It should also be remembered that the cost estimates contained in the PPIC report (as modified by Dr. Jeff Michaels of UOP) revealed that the costs to California from eliminating all Delta exports was essentially the same as constructing a Peripheral Canal.
The CCWD analysis is summarized as follows:
1. A Peripheral Canal alone would deliver less water than can be delivered today (4.6 MAF/year) after reductions required by the Wanger decision and federal biological opinions. Dual conveyance could deliver as much as 6 MAF/year, if fishery recommendations for increased flows are ignored.
2. The Sacramento River carries less than 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) 46% of the time (size of the proposed Peripheral Canal). Minimum instream flow needed to protect fisheries is 9,000-15,000 cfs (plus a percentage of the remainder). Again, higher bypass flows recommended by DG have not yet been studied.
3. Because of limitations on how much water can be drawn off the Sacramento River, 50 to 75% of exports must still come from the south Delta pumping plants.
4. A large Peripheral Canal would be largely unused: it would be empty 12% of the time, transport less than 2,000 cfs 18% of the time, transport 2,000-4,500 cfs 20% of the time, transport 9,000-14,000 15% of the time and convey more than 14,000 CVS only 4% of the time. In other words, it would be empty three times as often as it was at full capacity.
5. A 5,000 cfs pipeline would provide virtually the same amount of water as a 15,000 cfs canal. Again, this fails to consider necessary increased flows for fish.
6. Actual costs of a Peripheral Canal are close to 10-12 billion dollars, which does not include mitigation for project impacts or restoration efforts.
7. A Peripheral Canal would be longer than the Panama Canal and wider than the Sacramento River (500 feet wide). It would have the same seismic problems as existing levees (one of the supposed justifications for a canal), create major barriers to terrestrial species migration and have enormous seepage and drainage problems.
8. The analysis found that water supply improves with a small facility and that benefits diminish as size increases. The mid-point of construction for a 15,000 cfs Peripheral Canal would be 2023 and the mid-point for a 5,000 cfs canal would be 2018.
9. Environmental problems have yet to be addressed. A Peripheral Canal would worsen the stagnant polluted conditions in the Delta.
10. The BDCP studies show “variable salinity” (one of the selling points of a Peripheral Canal) would be difficult to attain.
11. The key water conflict remains. Freshwater flows are needed to protect fisheries: including, salmon flows for migration, spring flows for estuarine species and fall salinity for estuarine species. Meeting the needs of fisheries will require reduced water supplies.
12. New fish screens at Clifton Court Forebay (as required by the CalFed Record of Decision in 2000) would reduce loss of Delta smelt. Flow control gates (2-Gates) would limit entrainment of delta smelt (note: Two-Gates is a highly controversial experiment).
13. BDCP implementation remains 10 to 15 years away. Fisheries status remains poor. Other stressors (pollution, invasive species, etc.) are not being addressed. Lawsuits will continue to increase. Water supplies will remain unreliable.
“Peripheral canal needs public debate, not secrecy”
Article by Mike Machado discusses water debate and legislation:
Earlier this month, hundreds of supporters of the Delta, led by state Sen. Lois Wolk, D-Davis, rallied at the state Capitol to ensure that they have a voice in the upcoming water debate.
Although the discussion is heating up, and will likely include a number of key water issues, including governance, water storage and conservation, it is still happening behind closed doors with only eight weeks remaining in the 2009 session. In addition, all indications point to a revised version of the peripheral canal, which was overwhelmingly rejected by voters in 1982 – including 95 percent of the voters here in San Joaquin County.
Some, including this editorial page, have called for more canal studies. Before these plans move forward, there must be a firm understanding of the needs of the freshwater Delta, and any plans must require strong protection of the water flows necessary for healthy Delta communities, including Delta agriculture.
The Delta is home to more than 500,000 Californians, and the potential impacts of a peripheral canal could include more pollutants in our water, a higher risk of flooding, loss of fish and reduced farm production. And for Stockton and San Joaquin County, a peripheral canal jeopardizes our fresh water supply. The lack of fresh water flow in the San Joaquin River is made up by flow from the Sacramento River being drawn to the export pumps. The peripheral canal would eliminate Sacramento River flow and allow saltwater intrusion, impacting Stockton’s Delta Water Project and groundwater quality.
Any proposed legislation must move into the public light so all parties can fully debate the issues this legislative session. Any attempt to fast-track water legislation, especially one that includes the framework for a peripheral canal, without understanding all of the impacts on our Delta communities and our state, must be opposed.
Mike Machado
former state senator, Linden
“‘Million boat’ protest planned over Delta canal”
Article by Matt Weiser:
Drilling soil samples in Delta river bottoms is expected in September as California begins planning a controversial water diversion canal – a canal that also has a fleet of Delta boaters planning to weigh anchor in protest.
Oakley City Councilman Bruce Connelley launched the “Million Boat Float” idea, to protest drilling and what he calls a consistent exclusion of local residents from the canal planning process.
“The state government involved in this Delta plan has not listened to the people,” he said. “There is no choice other than a public display.”
The proposed canal has been endorsed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and a task force he assembled to study the issue. The task force said a canal could help restore the Delta’s strained environment.
The canal is a centerpiece of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan – the BDCP – which includes state and federal agencies, water users and environmental groups. Its goal is to obtain approval for the canal, and habitat protection projects, under the Endangered Species Act.
The group’s steering committee, however, has no local government representatives. Its meetings are public, but its outreach has been limited.
Karla Nemeth, state liaison to the BDCP, said a number of community workshops are planned in the Delta this fall.
“The loud and clear message we heard was that folks needed more detail,” she said.
Nonetheless, Connelley’s protest is set to begin Sunday, Aug. 16. He expects to see thousands of boaters cruising upriver to Sacramento for an overnight stay. On Monday, Aug. 17, the Legislature will reconvene after a recess, and the boaters will take their protest to the Capitol steps.
Connelley’s goal is a million boats, but he acknowledged he probably won’t get there.
“You ever seen a million boats on the Sacramento River before? I don’t think we ever will, but it ought to be pretty impressive.”
The protest is not likely to stall state Department of Water Resources plans to drill in the Delta in September.
That work involves taking soil samples as deep as 200 feet in the river bottom at 16 locations, from Sacramento‘s Pocket neighborhood and the town of Walnut Grove on the Sacramento River, to remote sloughs near Bethel Island and Stockton.
With land-based sampling already under way, testing is estimated to cost $4.5 million, paid for by water contractors that depend on the Delta.
A yet-to-be-hired contractor will work from either a barge or a ship. In addition to drilling, the crew will test soil density by using a hammer-like device to pound into the river bottom, said Mark Pagenkopp, a DWR senior engineering geologist overseeing the project.
The goal is to test suitability of soils for construction of a canal and its intakes, tunnels and siphons.
“This data will help in determining which alignment would be the best alignment to do,” Pagenkopp said.
He said work is likely to start near Sacramento‘s Pocket neighborhood, and then move south. The aim is to finish by the end of September, but it could stretch into 2010.
The canal would divert a portion of the Sacramento River’s flow directly to the Delta’s state and federal water export pumps near Tracy.
Isolating freshwater in a canal would prevent the pumps from killing fish, and would protect the water from floods and earthquakes.
A canal would also end the need to maintain the Delta as a freshwater environment to serve water diverters. Biologists say the Delta should have more frequent pulses of salt water, an idea that worries Delta residents.
What’s envisioned are actually two canals: a completely contained canal skirting one edge of the Delta, and a “through-Delta” canal assembled from existing levees running down the estuary.
Each canal would be enormous – at least 1,000 feet wide and 40 miles long – with potential environmental effects that remain unknown.
The project is similar to the ill-fated Peripheral Canal rejected by California voters in 1982. This time, the Schwarzenegger administration claims it doesn’t need voter approval to build the canal, which is likely to cost $10 billion.
Many property owners are protesting DWR’s demand for access to conduct land-based soil sampling. About 35 lawsuits are pending as a result.
Dante Nomellini Sr., a lawyer representing some property owners, said the drilling is likely to draw more lawsuits.
Connelley said his “Million Boat Float” will be civil. Participating boats will fly unique flags to identify them as part of the flotilla.
“There’s no intent to do anything radical that would hurt, harm or demean anybody,” he said. “Our focus is to bring this to national attention.”
Hello world!
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
Restore the delta's Blog 