Peripheral canal only benefits Southern California, say opinion pieces
Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 8, 2009 at 7:48 amFrom the Stockton Record, this editorial:
A recommendation to set a timetable to start digging a ditch around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta - a far-fetched idea with more lives than a cat - should be a warning to north Valley residents that there are those who couldn’t care less about the health of the fragile estuary.
The so-called Delta Vision task force, a Cabinet-level group, last week sent its recommendation to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter of a peripheral canal project.
Basically, such a canal would take water from the Sacramento River at Hood and route it around the Delta to huge pumps that would then shoot it south. All this would be done without legislative or voter approval.
There are at least two troubling things about this:
First, despite 20 months of study, the Delta Vision group seems to have given short-shrift to study after study that has shown the Delta ecosystem to be under threat. Fish populations are collapsing. Foreign species are invading. Water quality is declining. Flood risks - because of aging and failure-prone levees - are growing.
Second, how can we possibly pay for such a project, estimated by the state Department of Water Resources at from $4.2 billion to $7.2 billion, when the Delta itself is in such terrible shape? The Delta Vision group suggests new water bonds for the canal, but there is no way to build a canal and repair the miles and miles of levees, too.
The main purpose of the peripheral canal is to sate the thirst of Southern California, says this editorial. Jerome Waldie lays the blame for the Delta’s decline squarely on the shoulders of Southern California in this commentary published in the Contra Costa Times:
As a state legislator, I argued against the peripheral canal when it was first proposed. I viewed it then, as I view it now, akin to a faucet by which northern waters would be transported to a thirsty south. The control of that “faucet” would then be in the hands of the south where political power now resides and the problems of the Delta would never prevail over the need of the parched south for northern water.
As an indication of their attitude on this issue, a spokesperson for the southern dominated Association of California Water Agencies, supporting the governor’s endorsement of the Peripheral Canal, said, “The Delta is broken and we need to look at improvements to our conveyance system.” By “improvements” she meant the Peripheral Canal but had not the courage to so identify her proposal.
Well, of course, the Delta is “broken!” But who broke it? The southern water interests did by continually demanding more and more of the Sacramento River. The Delta was not “broken” until the California Water Project was constructed to meet the demands of the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District for northern water.
To suggest that those who “broke” the Delta should now be permitted to literally destroy the Delta by constructing a “faucet” that they, and only they, would control, is ludicrous.
Read the full text of the editorial from Stockton’s Record by clicking here; read the full text of Jerome Waldie’s commentary in the Contra Costa Times by clicking here.
Comments
One Response to “Peripheral canal only benefits Southern California, say opinion pieces”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.







Would someone be so kind as to educate me. How will taking water before it gets to the Delta help the fragile ecosystem? Wont that just make the salt water flow into the Delta even further?
Oh wait — but the pumps wont be killing the fish so the pumps can run at 100%!!!! I get it now, it isn’t about saving the Delta, it is about getting past the ruling that said shut down the pumps.
Am I missing something here?