This is just one post in the Peripheral Canal Category

Restore the Delta challenges Public Policy Institute’s support of peripheral canal

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Submitted by Dan Bacher to Aquafornia:

Restore the Delta, a coalition including Delta farmers, environmentalists, fishermen, business leaders, the faith community, recreation enthusiasts, and everyday folks, today issued a powerful statement calling into question many of the findings in the Public Policy Institute’s “Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta,” a report calling for a peripheral canal. I urge everybody concerned about the fate of the California Delta and the state’s fisheries to read their critique of the report’s conclusions.

The Public Policy Institute(PPIC)-UC Davis team’s report concludes that “a peripheral canal is not only more promising than the temporary and ultimately unsustainable ‘dual conveyance’ option – which combines the current approach with a canal – but is also the best available strategy to balance two equally important objectives.”

“Coupling a peripheral canal – the least expensive option – with investment in the Delta ecosystem can promote both environmental sustainability and a reliable water supply,” said Ellen Hanak, PPIC associate director and senior fellow. The report was authored by a “multidisciplinary team” including Hanak, Jay Lund, William Fleenor, William Bennett, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, and Peter Moyle from the University of California, Davis.

In spite of the team’s contentions, building a peripheral canal like the one that Senator Dianne Feinstein and Governor Arnold “Fish Terminator,” the worst ever Governor for fish and the environment in California history, are pushing for, will only make the dramatic declines of Central Valley chinook salmon, steelhead, delta smelt, longfin smelt, striped bass and other fish species even worse. There are no examples in U.S. history that I know of where the construction of a canal resulted in increased flows for fish and wildlife.

Make no mistake about it: the Delta’s problem is not that it lacks a canal. The problem is that its water is overallocated, much of it to toxic land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley that should have never been put into agricultural production. To restore Central Valley chinook salmon and California Delta fish species, more water must be allowed to flow NATURALLY through the Delta, not less.

In spite of the hypocritical rhetoric that Feinstein and Schwarzenegger and the Public Policy Institute’s authors spin about “ecosystem restoration,” the only purpose of the peripheral canal is to create the capacity to export more water from the Delta. We need increased conservation of water so that we can restore Central Valley salmon, delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish to historical levels, not increased water exports.

Restore the Delta Board Press President Bill Loyko questions how constructing a peripheral canal could possibly solve water needs throughout the state. “A peripheral canal, first and foremost will not make more water,” he said. “The present problem with California’s water system is that it is short 5 million acre-feet of water annually to meet current state needs.”

Barrigan-Parrilla, Restore the Delta campaign director, contends that changes in water quality to the Delta produced by a peripheral canal will result in “economic chaos” for the region.

“Neither the PPIC Report authors nor officials with the State have done a full-scale economic analysis of how a change in water quality with the operation of a peripheral canal would impact farming, recreation, or fisheries,” she stated. “It is estimated that Delta farming alone contributes $2 billion per year to our local economy, and recreation like boating and fishing another $750 million. If the Delta is made into a salty inland sea, the economic impacts will be devastating to those living in the surrounding five counties of the Delta.”

The Public Policy Institute’s authors, by supporting Arnold Schwarzenegger’s peripheral canal, are steering the Delta ecosystem over the precipice of disaster in the same manner that the captain and crew of the Titanic “navigated” that ship into a big iceberg!

Here’s the news release from Restore the Delta:
For Immediate Release: July 17, 2008

Restore the Delta Contact: Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla
http://www.restorethedelta.org

BAD ASSUMPTIONS LEAD TO FAULTY ANSWERS FOR THE DELTA: RESTORE THE DELTA QUESTIONS PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE REPORT CALLING FOR A PERIPHERAL CANAL

Stockton, California — Restore the Delta, a Delta-based coalition including Delta farmers, environmentalists, everyday citizens, fishermen, business leaders, the faith community, and recreation enthusiasts, is calling into questions many of the findings in the Public Policy Institute’s Navigating the Delta, a report calling for a peripheral canal.

First, longtime Delta advocate, Tom Zuckerman, notes that the report’s conclusion that Delta islands with highways were worth saving, while others are not worth maintaining, is an unrealistic conclusion. “How can one maintain any semblance of land form, so as to protect highway structures, with an ocean essentially in the middle of a few islands? For that matter, without the semblance of land forms in the Delta, how would water and gas lines, the railroad, and shipping channels remain protected?”

Central Delta Water Agency’s Dante Nomellini further explains that the inter-relationship between Delta islands extends to seepage, wind-wave generation, and fishery and wildlife habitat. “One cannot simply flood islands without adversely affecting the ecosystem and infrastructure on the surrounding islands,” says Nomellini.

Second, Restore the Delta Board Press President Bill Loyko questions how constructing a peripheral canal could possibly solve water needs throughout the state. “A peripheral canal, first and foremost will not make more water. The present problem with California’s water system is that it is short 5 million acre-feet of water annually to meet current state needs. Rerouting water will not solve that problem.”

Loyko also asserts that the report’s call for building a peripheral without limits in size is merely the means by which to take away the Delta’s last major fresh water source, and thereby would worsen Delta water quality.

Third, Restore the Delta’s Campaign Director, Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, adds that the report’s analysis of water quality is also faulty. “Their analysis assumes that water flowing into and out of the Delta remains unchanged when the point of diversion is changed. But everyone who lives, works, and recreates in the Delta knows that with less fresh water flowing through the Delta, more salt water will intrude into local waterways.”

In fact, the report makes a highly inaccurate assumption that water quality would improve for farmers near the San Joaquin River. Barrigan-Parrilla says that the report’s authors have not engaged in any conversations with local Delta experts, South Delta farmers – some of whom have lived on the land for ninety years.

Barrigan-Parrilla also adds that such changes in water quality to the Delta will result in economic chaos for the region. “Neither the PPIC Report authors nor officials with the State have done a full-scale economic analysis of how a change in water quality with the operation of a peripheral canal would impact farming, recreation, or fisheries. It is estimated that Delta farming alone contributes $2 billion per year to our local economy, and recreation like boating and fishing another $750 million. If the Delta is made into a salty inland sea the economic impacts will be devastating to those living in the surrounding five counties of the Delta.”

Last, Restore the Delta Board Member, Betsy Reifsnider, notes problems with the report’s conclusions regarding governance for the Delta and how these conclusions mirror problems with the Delta Vision Strategic Draft Plan. Reifsnider explains, “The PPIC Report concludes that consensus regarding Delta management cannot be reached. While that statement may be true on the surface, it unfortunately is a polite way of saying that local Delta experts should be left out of governance decisions.”

Reifsnider also adds that the Delta Vision process is calling for a governance council for the Delta comprised solely of governor appointees. “Where do Delta locals have the opportunity to assist with governing the Delta?” asks Reifsnider. “After all, who knows the Delta best?”

All contributors are available for interviews.