Water Education Foundation
This is just one post in the Peripheral Canal Category
Click here to view all posts

Coverage Wrap-Up: Delta peripheral canal should be built, report concludes

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on July 17, 2008 at 10:21 pm

Leading off with Mike Taugher at the Contra Costa County Times.:

A team of experts says the best way to fix California’s troubled water system is to build a controversial peripheral canal that would deliver water around the Delta rather than through it. Their report concludes a canal would be the cheapest economic alternative and the best choice for the environment short of cutting off altogether Delta water shipments to the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

“Ultimately, there are two choices here: no exports or a peripheral canal. If there are no exports, the biggest losers are the Bay Area (residents),” said Jay Lund, a UC Davis engineering professor and one of the report’s co-authors.

The report was done by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California and written by several leading Delta experts, mostly at UC Davis.

In essence, the report finds that the Delta, which is widely considered the weak link in a water system that delivers to millions of acres of farmland and two-thirds of California’s residents, will inevitably succumb to rising sea level or earthquakes. And, the report notes, the current system of taking water from giant pumps in the south Delta is already wreaking havoc on protected fish populations to the point that water managers are being forced to curtail water deliveries. As a result, the state should build a canal now to shield the economy from the effects of a major failure.

The Sacramento Bee adds this:

“The bottom line is if we are to pump water from north to south, then a peripheral canal is the only way you can do it and be somewhat environmentally friendly,” said William Bennett, a UC Davis fisheries ecologist and co-author of the report.

The team recommends against a “dual conveyance” strategy favored by policy makers. This involves both a peripheral canal and a “through-Delta” water canal assembled by modifying existing levees within the Delta. They argue that any canal that relies on levees will not be sustainable in the long run and will always remain vulnerable to weather, climate change and weak soils.

The team also recommends a comparable investment in ecosystem restoration projects that would allow some Delta islands to flood permanently, and new government structures to improve Delta management.

From the AP and the San Jose Mercury News:

The study says continuing to channel water through the delta’s maze of fragile levees and sinking islands is a risky and costly path.

Projected sea level rise, increased runoff from early spring snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada and the potential failure of multiple levees during a major earthquake eventually could cost Californians much more than building and operating a canal, the study says.

The debate over such a canal goes back decades and has long been contentious. California voters soundly rejected plans to build a so-called peripheral canal in 1982, largely on the strength of Northern California voters who feared the proposal was nothing more than a water grab by Southern California agencies.

The Public Policy Institute says much has changed since then, with the delta’s health declining rapidly and global climate raising alarm about California’s long-term water supply.

More details from the Central Valley Business Times:

Although it would be best for fish populations if California stopped using the Delta as a water source altogether, this would be an extremely costly strategy, according to the report, authored by a multidisciplinary team including Ellen Hanak, PPIC associate director and senior fellow, and Jay Lund, William Fleenor, William Bennett, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, and Peter Moyle from the University of California, Davis.

The PPIC-UC Davis team 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,” Ms. Hanak says.

Among the report’s recommendations:

• Plan to allow some Delta islands to flood permanently. The state should invest in the levees that protect high-value land, ecosystem goals, and critical infrastructure – and allow lower-value islands to return to aquatic habitat.

• Begin the transition from the current Delta management system. The current system is harming the native fish now, as federal court rulings have found, the report says, adding that over time, it will hurt the state’s economy.

• Develop a new framework for governing and regulating the Delta. With the proper safeguards, a peripheral canal can be economically and environmentally beneficial, the report says. It is a more cost-effective strategy than dual conveyance, which, because it relies on continued pumping through the Delta, is an interim solution.

An updated Sacramento Bee story adds this:

The researchers recommend that rather than restricting the canal’s size to limit diversions, it should be large enough to handle surplus flows during flood conditions. This water could be stored in the Bay Area and Southern California for use during droughts, and so that diversions can be halted when water is needed for migrating salmon. The work of restricting diversions would fall to a new governing body with new legal powers, under the researchers’ recommendations.

They also recommend dedicating a significant share of the canal’s capacity to the ecosystem. This would allow water quality and fishery needs to restrict diversions. “It’s guaranteeing the environment some water rights it doesn’t currently have,” said Ellen Hanak, PPIC associate director and a report coauthor.

Water interests praised the report as a vital affirmation that California will suffer unless bold steps are taken. “If we build a better water system in tandem with improvements to the ecosystem, we can have a healthy environment and healthy economy,” said Laura King-Moon, assistant general manager of the State Water Contractors, in a written statement.

But not everyone agrees with the PPIC’s findings. Said Barbara Barrigan-Parilla in a press release:

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.”

And from Stockton’s Record:

“To me, this is nothing but a water grab,” said longtime fisherman Jay Sorensen of Stockton.

A peripheral canal “will not make more water,” Bill Loyko, president of Stockton-based Restore the Delta, said in a statement. California’s problem, he said, is that it’s millions of acre-feet short of water.

The question now is how policymakers will receive the new report. Schwarzenegger’s panel is due to issue recommendations on a Delta solution by October.

Democrat Lois Wolk of Davis, chairwoman of the Assembly’s water policy committee, said it was premature to support a canal that might not improve the health of the Delta. “No evidence in this theoretical study takes into account the rough and tumble of real life, present-day water politics,” Wolk said in a statement. “If all of the state’s attention and resources are devoted to the construction of a pipe to keep pumping all that water out of the region, then the Delta will surely die.”

The report drew praise from Senator Cogdill:

“Nothing is more important to the future of California than a reliable water supply. Whether you are a farmer, a business or a home owner, you expect there to be water when you turn on the tap.

“Clearly the PPIC looked carefully at the many complex issues facing California with regard to long term water delivery solutions. At the end of the day, California must have a comprehensive solution that takes delivery, storage and the environment into consideration.

“The need for responsible water policy goes beyond partisan politics. I hope this thoughtful examination by PPIC of this issue will encourage lawmakers to avoid a piece meal solution and instead take action on this crisis sooner rather than later.”

July 17, 2008 · Filed Under Peripheral Canal

Comments

One Response to “Coverage Wrap-Up: Delta peripheral canal should be built, report concludes”

  1. California’s Water Wars: Can We Save Fisheries and Solve Water Problems? : The Trout Underground Fly Fishing Blog on July 19th, 2008 10:43 am

    [...] The only real constant in all this has been the wide-ranging coverage provided by the Aquafornia blog, which quickly threw together a post summarizing reactions to the report’s announcement. [...]

Leave a Reply