Delta Flows- December 28, 2009
We Expected Better of the Network That Gave Us
Edward R. Murrow
by Jane Wagner-Tyack
“60 Minutes” had a chance to take on California agribusiness and water mismanagement the way they took on Big Tobacco. They blew that chance. Instead, this past Sunday we got a CBS-ified version of Fox’s Sean Hannity, complete with dry Westlands acreage, smelt-in-the-hand, and out of work Latinos. So hackneyed was Leslie Stahl’s fish- vs.-farmer formulation that even the Governor dodged it.
The Governor took Stahl on a flyover of the Delta and didn’t say a single word about all the people who live and farm there. We got to see him standing in front of the Latino Water Coalition, and Stahl never raised the issue of whom that coalition really represents. Sloppy. Was anyone at CBS doing any research?
With Latinos in food lines as a background, Stahl repeated the misinformation about loss of water for agriculture being the cause of Central Valley unemployment. Sloppy again.
Unemployed salmon fishermen got just a nod. All the sympathy was reserved for the west side farmer who had to pull out the almond trees he should never have planted. And he got the last word, threatening Americans with having to get their food from somewhere else. They certainly won’t be getting their food from the Central Valley if agribusiness there can make more money selling their water for development in the desert.
Restore the Delta gives Professor Jeffrey Mount an unqualified “A” for saying that farmers need to stop relying on water transfers. But he gets a resounding “F” as in “fragile,” the word he once again applied to Delta levees. The implication, as always: they’re too fragile to be worth maintaining. But Mount knows we have to maintain them, not just for water transfers and farming but to protect
infrastructure and manage flooding in the whole region.
Mount’s model of saltwater intrusion was indeed alarming, but the Governor’s conveyance dream will not address the problems of saltwater intrusion into the Estuary and the Delta, especially if it diverts resources from levee management.
The Governor came out of this segment looking like his old action-hero self, ready to take on a huge challenge. Why spoil that by asking if his approach is wrong-headed?
CBS came out of the segment looking like an amateur news organization. Somebody at the network should be embarrassed.
|
League of Women Voters: Delta Water Forum Update
The Diablo Valley League of Women Voters and the San Joaquin County League are happy to announce that Contra Costa County Supervisor Mary N. Piepho will be a panelist for their January 23 program. Supervisor Piepho will bring an invaluable perspective on recent legislative events to this discussion of water issues in the Delta, and we are pleased that she is able to participate. Registration for this program will begin at 9:30 rather than 10 a.m. as previously announced. |
Support Us!
With the Bay Delta Conservation Plan steering committee preparing its final new conveyance report, San Joaquin Valley Congressional Representatives are leading the charge to “turn on the pumps” and there is a need to educate Californians on Delta management and the proposed water bond. Western San Joaquin Valley agribusiness interests are waging an all out media war so that they can gain control of California’s water system.
Already, the well-heeled Western SJ Valley agribusiness lobby has created a media campaign that pits the water needs debate as people versus fish, influencing public discussions and reporting by the media, as well as the debate between Congressional Representatives in Washington D.C.
Our media and advocacy teams are working to turn the tide against the water districts in the Western San Joaquin Valley that utilize 80% of Delta water exports, but we cannot succeed without your support.
Help us fight California Western San Joaquin agribusiness attempts to rob the Pacific Coast’s largest estuary of the fresh water it needs for fishery and Delta family farming communities to survive — please make a gift today.
So far, the Western SJ Valley agribusiness push for increased water exports and new conveyance is setting the stage for water exporters to resell their water to Southern California developers. All this is happening while Delta water quality standards are not being met or enforced for Delta family farming communities and for the protection of Delta fisheries.
Please make a year-end gift to help Restore the Delta so that it can stand up to the powerful Western San Joaquin Valley agribusiness industry in 2010 and move closer to the restoration of freshwater flows through the Delta.
We cannot afford to lose this fight, and we cannot succeed without your support. Please donate today by clicking here.
Thank you for all that each of you do to work for restoration of the Delta.
Restore the Delta wishes you and your family a joyous and merry Christmas, Hanikkah, and Kwanza and best wishes for the New Year!
Sincerely,
Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla
Campaign Director
Delta Flows December 21, 2009
PPIC Myths and Surveys
by Jane Wagner-Tyack
The Public Policy Institute of California never rests in its ongoing efforts to subtly buttress the status quo. With its substantial funding resources, it doesn’t have to take a break.
The PPIC has just released “California Water Myths,” with funding from S. D. Bechtel Jr. Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Resources Legacy Fund, among other funders. All these funders are pro peripheral canal organizations.
The PPIC argues that we can’t fix California’s water system unless we confront and debunk some myths. Restore the Delta agrees, although our list of important myths to debunk wouldn’t bear much resemblance to PPIC’s list.
One myth the PPIC seeks to debunk is that subsidized agriculture is a villain responsible for California’s water problems. The PPIC argues that CVP farmers have already paid through higher land prices for their approximately $60 million per year in water subsidies.
Land eligible for subsidized water is certainly more expensive, but the other way to look at that is that access to water makes the value of the land go up. How many CVP farmers complained about the cost of land when they thought the spigot delivering water would be permanently turned to “On”?
Agribusiness corporations in California are in the process of turning water, a public resource, into a saleable commodity. These corporations are so big that they control commodity prices, forcing smaller farmers out of business. If they can make more money selling their subsidized water to developers in the desert than in planting crops, then that is what they do-never mind their claim that they feed the world.
“Villains” may not be the best word to describe these agribusiness interests. But it will do until we think of a better one.
Another myth the PPIC identifies is this: “More water will lead to healthy fish populations.” Fair enough. No one familiar with the problems we face with water pollution and invasive species thinks that more water alone will return fish populations to health. The thing is, fish won’t be healthy without adequate water.
As a logician would say, more water is not a sufficient condition for healthy fish populations. But adequate water is certainly a necessary condition.
At the beginning of December, the tireless PPIC did one of its periodic surveys of “Californians and Their Government.” (This was the 38th.) Funded by the James Irvine Foundation, this survey solicited opinions of 2,004 adult residents on issues ranging from the 2010 gubernatorial race and various possible ballot initiatives to national health care reform, the troop surge in Afghanistan, and of course, the economy.
You may have participated in telephone surveys like this in the past. I have. Maybe it is after dinner, and there isn’t anything interesting on TV. Someone asks me questions about a lot of things I haven’t given much thought to, and after answering 30 questions or so, I’m rolling out opinions with ease.
How concerned am I about the effect of state spending cuts on local government services? (Very? Somewhat? Not too? etc.) That’s a hard kind of question to answer. But here comes an easier one, question #34: “”Would you say that the supply of water is a big problem, somewhat of a problem, or not much of a problem in your part of California?”
After three years of drought, with all the publicity water has gotten recently, I’m likely to identify this as a big problem if I live in the Central Valley, Los Angeles, or somewhere else in Southern California. (If I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, I’m less likely to say this is a big problem. If I live in Monterey or Mendocino, I’m not one of the people being asked.)
Next question: Do I think the water supply in my part of the state will be adequate or inadequate (somewhat or very inadequate) for what is needed ten years from now?
Now I’m being invited to speculate on the future. I’ve just answered a lot of questions about the recession, joblessness, my personal financial situation (is it going to get worse?), the state budget deficit, and a bunch of candidates I don’t know well enough to have an opinion about. Things look grim. If I think water supply in my area is a problem now, I certainly don’t expect the situation to be better in 10 years. It is hard to imagine anything being better in 10 years.
Do I think it is important to pass a bond measure to pay for water projects? Sure. Heck, why not?
Eleven point one billion dollars? A million, a billion, it’s all funny money anyway. Next question? Let’s move on to whether I approve of Barack Obama.
No survey is without bias. The choice, number, and order of questions, along with the time of the call and the random persons who agree to participate, all introduce an inescapable bias into any survey.
Suppose the PPIC survey had asked these questions about water:
1. Would you say that your part of California is reliant on water that comes from another part of the State?
2. If your part of the State is very reliant or somewhat reliant on imported water, do you think that your part of the State is taking the actions necessary-such as conservation and recycling–to reduce its reliance on imported water and become regionally self-sufficient?
3. Do you think water problems in California are serious enough to address them with a water project bond that will add up to $800 million in debt service to the state budget annually?
These are the questions Californians need to be asked to consider.
RTD sponsored its own poll several months ago and found that Californians weren’t thrilled about taking on more bond debt for water projects. You can find that poll under the Resources tab on our website.
Delta Flows for Dec. 7, 2009
A cursory examination of the presentation reveals three suggested tunnel/canal schemes: a tunnel/canal scheme for the Westside of the Delta; one for the Eastside of the Delta, and one for an all tunnel scheme for the Eastside of the Delta. All three plans include five intakes that could each pump 3,000 cubic feet per second of river water for a total pumping capacity of 15,000 cfs. Thus, while the design may be changing, the damage done to the estuary as a result from rerouting the Sacramento River would be as devastating as rerouting the Sacramento River through the previously proposed peripheral canal. (To see the power point presentation of the plan click here.)
Equally disturbing are the costs associated with construction, land acquisition, and operations of the project. For instance, annual energy costs associated with the project would be between $10 million and $51 million per year. Annual maintenance costs would run between $13 and $17 million per year. Land acquisition costs would run between $87 million and $247 million dollars, while construction costs for the project are estimated at 8 to 11 billion dollars (which we believe is a low estimate). While the Metropolitan Water District and the Westlands Water District say they will pay for construction of new conveyance, it appears that the State (aka California tax payers) would be on the hook for these other costs. Plus, when we consider that the State Water Project is run on bonds, and that the Westlands Water District has had hundreds of millions of dollars forgiven by the Federal Government for the San Luis Reservoir, it becomes clear that Californians would be expected to subsidize water for corporate agribusiness (which provides relatively few jobs to the state economy) for at least the next fifty years.
And then there are environmental mitigation costs. Under the slide that lists Environmental Impact Evaluation Methods it is stated that tunnels were assumed to have no environmental impact. Clearly, nobody at DWR, the California Resources Agency, or the BDCP Engineering Contractors are looking at how a tunnel or tunnels would contribute to seepage flooding on the Eastside of the Delta from Sacramento to Tracy. Who is looking out for the thousands of homeowners in Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties who could be negatively impacted by such a project?
However, during dry periods, when no water will be available for export, which will happen more frequently with climate change, perhaps Delta residents would be able to drive through the tunnels and thus experience improved commute times to Sacramento. That way, this new conveyance system would not become an abandoned asset.
The next Bay Delta Conservation Plan Steering Committee meeting will be held on December 17, 2009. Click here for meeting details.
|
Who Are We Subsidizing with Water Exports, Water Bonds, and New Conveyance?
Restore the Delta believes that one way to fight this injustice inflicted on Delta fisheries and communities is to begin boycotting products sold by subsidized agribusiness kings like Resnick. While Restore the Delta staff suggests minimizing the use of bottled water whenever possible, be sure to boycott Resnick’s Fiji Water, as well as POM Wonderful (pomegranate juice), TeleFlora (flower delivery services), Paramount Citrus, and products from Paramount Farms including pistachios and Almond Accents. Practically all these products used by Californians can be replaced by local growers, or by something as simple as planting a pomegranate tree in one’s yard. They are easy to grow. Pass the idea of the Resnick boycott along to your family and friends, and of course let them know how our political leaders are being influenced on water issues by billionaires like Resnick. |
|
A Fun Announcement
In the spirit of the holidays, join Organic Sacramento and Friends of the River for their 4th annual Organic Capital event on Thursday., December 10, 2009 · 6-10 p.m. at Beatnik Studios, 2421 17th St., Sacramento.Suggested donation: $10-$25 + (no one turned away) Learn about current threats to California’s water and sustainable/local agriculture. Live Music · Silent Auction · Local and Sustainable Food · Eco Awards Special Guest Speakers · Educational Outreach |
Restore the delta's Blog 