Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Schwarzenegger Administration Plans to Begin Drilling for Peripheral Canal
The Department of Water Resources is planning to drill in the Delta to lay the groundwork for proposed intakes for the peripheral canal, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Big Ditch."
Schwarzenegger Administration Plans to Begin Drilling for Peripheral Canal
by Dan Bacher
The State Department of Water Resources is planning to begin drilling into river bottoms of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta next month to obtain information for proposed intake structures and tunnels for the peripheral canal.
Although state officials claim the drilling is necessary for the state to evaluate different conveyance options under the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), fishermen, farmers and environmentalists see the plan to drill as laying the groundwork for the peripheral canal even though the project hasn’t been authorized or funded yet.
“We’re not building a canal intake now,” said Matt Notley, spokesman for the Department of Water Resources. “This is part of a survey process we’ve done for several months on land as part of the environmental review under the BDCP.”
Notley said the Department would be studying in-water soil samples at 16 proposed intake locations under consideration on the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Mokelumne Rivers. A lot of the drilling will occur on the Sacramento between Freeport and Walnut Grove, the approximate area where the canal would begin.
“None of the impact analysis itself has begun,” he stated. “All of this preliminary data gathering will be used to do the impact analysis when it begins.”
He claimed that to conduct an appropriate impact analysis for the series of conveyance options proposed under the BDCP, they need to obtain the correct and updated geotechnical data.
However, Bill Jennings, chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said it was “subterfuge” for DWR to start the drilling process for proposed intakes before it has been decided whether or not the canal will be built.
“It seems DWR is saying to hell with the legislators, Delta farmers and fishermen by proceeding with this drilling project,” he stated. “DWR has decided to do the engineering work for the canal before the Legislature has even decided to authorize or fund the project.”
Delta farmers and landowners are also blasting DWR's drilling project. Barbara Daly, North Delta resident and landowner and a member of North Delta CARES, says beginning the drilling is another "fatal step toward completing a bad plan to build a peripheral canal."
"The rich farming land in the Delta is going to be confiscated and our water is being traded to large Central Valley corporate agribusiness interests," said Daly. "The Delta farmers want to cooperate and find a better way to work with our state water supply, but they are being overlooked, and cooperative solutions aren’t an option to the Governor’s plan."
“There is no question that DWR is out to destroy the Bay-Delta Estuary by proceeding with this project,” said Dante Nomellini, the attorney for the Central Delta Water Agency. “They have made the decision to build the canal and are trying to portray a semblance of compliance with the law.”
He criticized the agency for taking a “piecemeal” approach to avoid compliance with the different permits required from local, state and federal agencies to conduct such a project. For example, they are not getting permits from levee districts, even though there are undoubtedly impacts to levees that will result from boring holes to explore possible intakes for the canal.
Nomellini and John Herrick, lawyer for the South Delta Water Agency, in April filed a groundbreaking lawsuit charging everyone involved with the BDCP in violating numerous environmental laws protecting fish and wildlife and requiring adequate public input.
The lawsuit by Delta farmers contends that state and federal government agency officials, water agency representatives and non-governmental organizations have violated numerous provisions of the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), NEPA, and the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act by participating in the BDCP.
DWR claims that the purpose of Bay Delta Conservation Plan is to “provide for the conservation of at-risk species in the Delta and improve its reliability as the hub of the state's water supply system.”
However, the growing coalition of Delta farmers, commercial fishing groups, recreational angling organizations, Indian Tribes and environmentalists see the canal as a water grab by corporate agribusiness in the San Joaquin to increase water exports from the Delta to corporate agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. They fear that the canal will only worsen the collapse of Central Valley Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, striped bass and other species.
The peripheral canal will approximate the Panama Canal in size and length, amounting to a "Panama Canal North." A canal designed to carry 15,000 cfs of water would be between 500 and 700 feet wide, requiring a 1300 foot right-of-way, based on an engineering report completed in August 2006 by Washington Group International for the State Water Contractors. The length of the conveyance would be between 47 and 48 miles. By comparison, the Panama Canal is between 500 and 1000 feet wide and 50 miles long.
The peripheral canal package proposed by the Governor and Legislators would cost an estimated $10 to $40 billion at a time when the state is in unprecedented economic crisis with a $26.3 billion budget deficit.
Opponents of the canal should protest this process during the public comment period now underway through July 26, 2009. DWR, the lead state agency for the “Bay Delta Conservation Plan In-water Geotechnical Drilling Project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared a draft initial study and mitigated negative declaration, http://www.water.ca.gov/deltainit/docs/MitigatedNegativeDeclaration-DraftInitial.pdf. Comments can be emailed to mbeachle [at] water.ca.gov. For more information, go to: http://www.water.ca.gov/deltainit/bdcp.cfm.
by Dan Bacher
The State Department of Water Resources is planning to begin drilling into river bottoms of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta next month to obtain information for proposed intake structures and tunnels for the peripheral canal.
Although state officials claim the drilling is necessary for the state to evaluate different conveyance options under the controversial Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), fishermen, farmers and environmentalists see the plan to drill as laying the groundwork for the peripheral canal even though the project hasn’t been authorized or funded yet.
“We’re not building a canal intake now,” said Matt Notley, spokesman for the Department of Water Resources. “This is part of a survey process we’ve done for several months on land as part of the environmental review under the BDCP.”
Notley said the Department would be studying in-water soil samples at 16 proposed intake locations under consideration on the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Mokelumne Rivers. A lot of the drilling will occur on the Sacramento between Freeport and Walnut Grove, the approximate area where the canal would begin.
“None of the impact analysis itself has begun,” he stated. “All of this preliminary data gathering will be used to do the impact analysis when it begins.”
He claimed that to conduct an appropriate impact analysis for the series of conveyance options proposed under the BDCP, they need to obtain the correct and updated geotechnical data.
However, Bill Jennings, chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said it was “subterfuge” for DWR to start the drilling process for proposed intakes before it has been decided whether or not the canal will be built.
“It seems DWR is saying to hell with the legislators, Delta farmers and fishermen by proceeding with this drilling project,” he stated. “DWR has decided to do the engineering work for the canal before the Legislature has even decided to authorize or fund the project.”
Delta farmers and landowners are also blasting DWR's drilling project. Barbara Daly, North Delta resident and landowner and a member of North Delta CARES, says beginning the drilling is another "fatal step toward completing a bad plan to build a peripheral canal."
"The rich farming land in the Delta is going to be confiscated and our water is being traded to large Central Valley corporate agribusiness interests," said Daly. "The Delta farmers want to cooperate and find a better way to work with our state water supply, but they are being overlooked, and cooperative solutions aren’t an option to the Governor’s plan."
“There is no question that DWR is out to destroy the Bay-Delta Estuary by proceeding with this project,” said Dante Nomellini, the attorney for the Central Delta Water Agency. “They have made the decision to build the canal and are trying to portray a semblance of compliance with the law.”
He criticized the agency for taking a “piecemeal” approach to avoid compliance with the different permits required from local, state and federal agencies to conduct such a project. For example, they are not getting permits from levee districts, even though there are undoubtedly impacts to levees that will result from boring holes to explore possible intakes for the canal.
Nomellini and John Herrick, lawyer for the South Delta Water Agency, in April filed a groundbreaking lawsuit charging everyone involved with the BDCP in violating numerous environmental laws protecting fish and wildlife and requiring adequate public input.
The lawsuit by Delta farmers contends that state and federal government agency officials, water agency representatives and non-governmental organizations have violated numerous provisions of the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCPA), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), NEPA, and the Bagley Keene Open Meeting Act by participating in the BDCP.
DWR claims that the purpose of Bay Delta Conservation Plan is to “provide for the conservation of at-risk species in the Delta and improve its reliability as the hub of the state's water supply system.”
However, the growing coalition of Delta farmers, commercial fishing groups, recreational angling organizations, Indian Tribes and environmentalists see the canal as a water grab by corporate agribusiness in the San Joaquin to increase water exports from the Delta to corporate agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. They fear that the canal will only worsen the collapse of Central Valley Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, striped bass and other species.
The peripheral canal will approximate the Panama Canal in size and length, amounting to a "Panama Canal North." A canal designed to carry 15,000 cfs of water would be between 500 and 700 feet wide, requiring a 1300 foot right-of-way, based on an engineering report completed in August 2006 by Washington Group International for the State Water Contractors. The length of the conveyance would be between 47 and 48 miles. By comparison, the Panama Canal is between 500 and 1000 feet wide and 50 miles long.
The peripheral canal package proposed by the Governor and Legislators would cost an estimated $10 to $40 billion at a time when the state is in unprecedented economic crisis with a $26.3 billion budget deficit.
Opponents of the canal should protest this process during the public comment period now underway through July 26, 2009. DWR, the lead state agency for the “Bay Delta Conservation Plan In-water Geotechnical Drilling Project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), has prepared a draft initial study and mitigated negative declaration, http://www.water.ca.gov/deltainit/docs/MitigatedNegativeDeclaration-DraftInitial.pdf. Comments can be emailed to mbeachle [at] water.ca.gov. For more information, go to: http://www.water.ca.gov/deltainit/bdcp.cfm.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Here's a few websites with some background info on the risks presented by the peripheral canal. Some detail benefits also, though it seems overall that the risks far outweigh the benefits, and potential for abuse by greatly increasing water exports to the San Joaquin agribusiness is probable under the peripheral canal's structure;
From the SF Bay Sierra Club "Yodeler";
"Why is the Delta important?
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay form the largest estuary on the West Coast south of Alaska. Such estuaries, where fresh and salt water mix, are among the richest zones of biological productivity and diversity. In addition, the pumps of the State Water Project and the (federal) Central Valley Project, in the south Delta, pump southward an ever increasing volume of water to Central Valley farmers and southern California urban water users. When one adds in other water pumped from the Delta, as well as from rivers upstream of the Delta, this watershed provides 13 million acre-feet of water/year, approximately 30% of the total water used by [human] Californians.
The current version of the threat
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing for new reservoirs and a "peripheral canal". Such a canal would divert water from the Sacramento River upstream of the Delta and carry it to the export pumps - without mixing with the water of the Delta. He is expected to propose a bond measure to provide state funding for these projects. Typically, bond advocates are pushing forward before analyzing environmental impacts. Neither have financial agreements been made for future beneficiaries to fund the projects, and we expect that the governor will try to get the taxpayers to pay.
A more balanced idea
In January 2008 the Governor's Delta Vision Task Force's Blue Ribbon panel released recommendations for more conservation and water-system efficiency, and reductions and/or timing changes in water diversions from the Delta, as well as construction of a peripheral canal.
A less balanced idea
This January, however, the Delta Vision Committee, comprised of five governor-appointed cabinet secretaries, released a report retaining many of the Task Force recommendations, but placing construction of a peripheral canal at the top of the agenda. Further, the committee made big news by announcing that the governor can build a canal without legislative or voter approval.
A tricky idea
A peripheral canal has tremendous potential benefits as well as risks.
One of the worst effects of the current pumping regime is the "reverse flow" problem. The pumps are so powerful that they literally reverse the direction of water-flow in certain nearby waterways. They also suck up Delta fish such as the once-abundant but now-endangered Delta smelt. A peripheral canal could end these problems.
But the water that flows through the canal would result in that much less water flowing through the Delta and eventually to the Bay. By removing fresh-water inflow to the Delta, a canal would allow salt water from the ocean to intrude deeper into the Delta. There would be less fresh water to flush out pollutants.
Depending upon its desigin, a canal could allow an increase in the volume of water exported, even though the current volume is already causing problems. A canal based on current design ideas would be large enough to capture almost all the water flowing down the Sacramento River most of the year, making the Delta a stagnant cesspool.
In the past, there has been talk about making a peripheral canal more acceptable by writing into law an enforceable maximum on water exports, but this is not in the current proposal. In fact, the Committee would put off until 2012 - a year after starting canal construction - the determination of how much water is required for the survival of native species, but past experience has demonstrated that once a facility is built, it will be used - whether or not it makes sense.
If the governor tries to build a canal, almost surely legal challenges will follow.
Restoration
The cabinet Committee has its priorities backwards. The first consideration should be to restore the Delta ecosystem to sustainability. Any volume of water export should be considered only if compatible with that goal.
The Delta Vision Committee indeed recommends restoration of Delta aquatic habitats - but without sufficient freshwater, no habitat restoration can restore viable fish populations.
A federal marshal to the rescue
On the brighter side, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently released a new Biological Opinion to protect the delta smelt under the federal Endangered Species Act. The opinion requires curtailment of water exports during times of year when Delta smelt are spawning and when larvae and juveniles are present - which would result in a 17% reduction in pumping from the current over-inflated volumes during average water years. A previous Biological Opinion claimed that the water exports did not threaten survival of the species, but that conclusion was litigated by environmentalists and ruled to be "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law".
Other fish, including salmon, depend on freshwater flows into the Delta. Central Valley salmon numbers have dropped so drastically that last year all salmon fishing off California and Oregon was prohibited, and a similar ban is expected for this year. A separate Biological Opinion for salmon is scheduled for release in March.
A much more balanced idea
The non-partisan state Legislative Analyst's Office recently released a "Water Primer" with insightful recommendations:
Water-supply reliability. For the short term, the legislative priorities should be to improve urban water-use efficiency and groundwater storage, and secondarily to increase agricultural water-use efficiency. For the long-term, the priorities should be to recycle more municipal wastewater, and secondarily to improve conveyance, desalination, and reservoir projects. Urban water-use efficiency is both the most cost-beneficial and the largest potential water producer of all of the solutions evaluated. The analyst found that urban water-use efficiency could save four times as much water as the governor's proposed dams, at 1/10 the cost per gallon.
Modification of the water-rights system. Water rights for both agriculture and cities should incorporate cost-effective water conservation and efficiency. Through realignment of "water conservation and efficiency efforts with water rights, overuse of water simply to maintain a water right could be reduced and that water would be available for other purposes within the region or state."
groundwater management. The state should establish a water-rights and -permitting system for groundwater to address both quantity and quality, with the cost of the regulatory system to be borne by those who use and pollute groundwater.
conveyance and new reservoirs. Legislators should evaluate the Delta Vision recommendations for conveyance and new and expanded reservoirs, carefully considering the costs, trade-offs (including environmental and land-use impacts), and benefits of each alternative. Funding for implementation of any alternative should be based on the principal that the beneficiary pays.
WhatYouCanDo
Write to:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg
State Capitol, #205
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Urge them to oppose construction of new reservoirs, and to support cost-effective and more sustainable alternatives: water conservation, water-use efficiency, water recycling, clean-up of groundwater, increased groundwater storage, and conjunctive use (the combined use of surface and ground water systems to optimize resource use and minimize impacts of using a single water source). Urge them to curtail water exports from the Delta system.
David Nesmith, facilitator, Environmental Water Caucus; and Jody Zaitlin, EWF volunteer
http://sfbay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2009/03/conservation6.htm
From the Modesto Bee;
Wednesday, Sep. 19, 2007
"San Joaquin supervisors oppose Peripheral Canal"
Board cites increased risk of flooding, loss of agricultural land
By INGA MILLER
imiller [at] modbee.com
STOCKTON -- A canal between the Sacramento River and pumps near Tracy would damage the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, dry farms and provide a straw for Southern California to suck the region's water, San Joaquin County Supervisors said Tuesday.
The board voted unanimously to oppose the Peripheral Canal, which is among the options under study by state officials. Proponents say it would secure a safe water supply for communities south of Tracy in the event of an earthquake and protect the delta's fragile ecosystem.
But county officials argued the canal would do neither and instead invite a host of problems.
AT A GLANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ISSUE: Peripheral Canal
WHAT IT IS: 44-mile canal would divert Sacramento River water to state and federal pumps near Tracy, bypassing the delta.
WHY: Help restore the delta and provide another water source for areas to the south should an earthquake wrack the delta and render the water undrinkable.
COST: $4.3 billion preliminary estimate
CONTROVERSY: San Joaquin County Supervisors say the canal would hurt the area around the delta.
HOW:
Taking over prime agricultural land and maybe urban areas
Leaking from the canal onto neighboring land
Impairing utilities and roads
Creating new flood dangers to agriculture and urban areas
Harming water rights and quality
Harming fish, wildlife and recreation
ALTERNATIVE:
Continue to transfer water from the Sacramento River through bolstered, existing delta channels. One would be 48 miles of reinforced levee with a preliminary estimate of $9.8 billion.
WHAT SUPERVISORS ARE DOING:
They voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose the plan.
The county will send a letter stating its position to the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. The partnership was created by Gov. Schwarzenegger to make recommendations for improving the region's economy and quality of life.
WHAT'S NEXT: State officials are hammering out a ballot measure expected to go to voters sometime next year and which might include the Peripheral Canal.
HISTORY:
San Joaquin County supervisors voted to oppose a canal in 1982, 1992 and 1998
State voters rejected the canal in 1982. A key complaint was that it would make it too easy to run water to Southern California.
"As far as I'm concerned, Southern California's thirst shouldn't be quenched at San Joaquin County's expense," Supervisor Steve Gutierrez said before making a motion to oppose the canal. "There are other options for Southern California, and they just look at this as the easy straw."
Gov. Schwarzenegger has praised the canal as a protective measure for ensuring safe drinking water should a massive flood or earthquake break levees in the delta and allow saltwater to flood in.
The irony is that the canal would be subject to an earthquake, too, said Thomas Flinn, the county's public works director.
"We don't see there being any true benefit to the county, and the impacts are numerous," he said.
Among them are increased risk of flooding, seepage of water from the canal onto adjoining land, agricultural land lost and the potential for losing water rights.
Then "there is still the philosophical problem that we still need to keep enough water in the delta to keep the delta healthy," Flinn said. "And in dry times, it would be very tempting for people to take all the water they can through the canal, and then the delta would become very saline."
The temptation for the state to divert water south and leave area farmers in the lurch became all too apparent during the past two droughts, in 1976-1977 and in 1991-1992, when the state suspended water rights, said Dante John Nomellini, who represents the Central Delta Water Agency.
"It boils down to the emergency power of government," he told supervisors. "They sus-pended all water rights and contracts and basically instituted martial law. The conduct of the state in the past has demonstrated they have not acted in a way that suggests they would act in good faith in the future. The delta smelt ... is an example of the operators running rough-shod over what is clearly known to be a very sensitive part of the delta."
entire article @;
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/71525.html
Some quotes from northern CA Reps;
Northern California Dems oppose peripheral canal
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Thursday, July 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Five Northern California members of Congress issued a joint statement opposing talk of building a peripheral canal as a means to solve the crisis in the Delta.
The five lawmakers — Democratic Reps. Ellen Tauscher, George Miller, Doris Matsui, Mike Thompson, and Jerry McNerney — represent areas of California from as far north as the Trinity River to the Sacramento River watershed and many Delta communities. They issued the following comments.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo): “The solution to the Delta’s problems will not come from new plumbing alone - we must reduce the amount of water we divert from the Delta, invest in alternative water supplies, and reform the management of our water supply systems. We need a careful analysis of the project proposed by this new PPIC report before moving forward. Congress and the federal government must do their part to ensure that the Central Valley Project is managed to restore the state’s fisheries and reduce unsustainable water allocations. This new report from the PPIC should not be used as a reason to short-circuit the planning processes already underway.”
Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), former chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee: “Last century’s water fights are old news. It’s past time for us to develop a sustainable water policy for all Californians. Any water plan that focuses on exports and excludes the protection of the Bay-Delta is a non-starter, as it has been for the last thirty years. The Bay-Delta estuary is vital to our region’s economy, our fishermen, farmers, and cities. The PPIC report should not be used to ignore the many things that can be done today to restore Delta health, including providing necessary fish flows, undertaking critical ecosystem restoration projects, and making major investments in water recycling and improved conservation measures.”
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento): “Those of us who represent the Delta region and its watershed know that the peripheral canal is not likely to solve our challenges, from the disappearance of our state’s iconic salmon fishery to the repair and management of the fragile levees that support our communities. The bottom line is that we need to come up with solutions for California that don’t rely on taking more and more water out of the Delta and the Sacramento River.”
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena): “Fishing families have paid an extremely high price for the Bush Administration’s illegal water policies. These policies killed over 80,000 salmon on the Klamath River and brought the Sacramento River king salmon stocks - considered the “driver” of all Pacific Northwest salmon - to the lowest levels on record, shutting down the entire fishing season for California and Oregon. The State of California estimates that the total economic impact of these closures to its fishing communities is more than $240 million. Now the State is considering a peripheral canal, which the PPIC report states could have ‘major (negative) effects on salmon?’ This is ridiculous. We are only now starting to right the wrongs of the Bush Administration’s illegal water plans. The debate about the peripheral canal is adding insult to injury to California’s fishing communities.”
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Tracy): “As our state’s population continues to grow, so do our water needs. We have to figure out a way that makes sense to ensure the health of the Delta and provide water for agricultural, industrial, and residential uses. But California voters rejected a peripheral canal in 1982 and proposing the same conveyance is the wrong solution. I do not support such a proposal.”
Last month, the five legislators strongly cautioned the Bush Administration against weakening protections for California’s Bay-Delta region. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the most valuable estuary ecosystem on the west coast of North or South America and provides fresh water to more than a third of all Californians.
The two studies released this week recommend actions to state and federal policymakers so that California’s salmon fishery can be revived and the Bay-Delta estuary restored to health, without threatening the state’s water supply:
“Water: Finding the Balance” by the Environmental Defense Fund: http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=8112
“Fish Out of Water” by the Natural Resources Defense Fund, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and Water 4 Fish: http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/salmon/contents.asp
article found @;
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/07/24/northern-california-dems-oppose-peripheral-canal/
Hope that this helps people with ideas for public comment, there are plenty more sites with detailed info on the risks of the peripheral canal, and why increasing water conservation and converting to drought tolerant crops would be better alternatives..
Best wishes for the fishes!!
From the SF Bay Sierra Club "Yodeler";
"Why is the Delta important?
The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay form the largest estuary on the West Coast south of Alaska. Such estuaries, where fresh and salt water mix, are among the richest zones of biological productivity and diversity. In addition, the pumps of the State Water Project and the (federal) Central Valley Project, in the south Delta, pump southward an ever increasing volume of water to Central Valley farmers and southern California urban water users. When one adds in other water pumped from the Delta, as well as from rivers upstream of the Delta, this watershed provides 13 million acre-feet of water/year, approximately 30% of the total water used by [human] Californians.
The current version of the threat
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing for new reservoirs and a "peripheral canal". Such a canal would divert water from the Sacramento River upstream of the Delta and carry it to the export pumps - without mixing with the water of the Delta. He is expected to propose a bond measure to provide state funding for these projects. Typically, bond advocates are pushing forward before analyzing environmental impacts. Neither have financial agreements been made for future beneficiaries to fund the projects, and we expect that the governor will try to get the taxpayers to pay.
A more balanced idea
In January 2008 the Governor's Delta Vision Task Force's Blue Ribbon panel released recommendations for more conservation and water-system efficiency, and reductions and/or timing changes in water diversions from the Delta, as well as construction of a peripheral canal.
A less balanced idea
This January, however, the Delta Vision Committee, comprised of five governor-appointed cabinet secretaries, released a report retaining many of the Task Force recommendations, but placing construction of a peripheral canal at the top of the agenda. Further, the committee made big news by announcing that the governor can build a canal without legislative or voter approval.
A tricky idea
A peripheral canal has tremendous potential benefits as well as risks.
One of the worst effects of the current pumping regime is the "reverse flow" problem. The pumps are so powerful that they literally reverse the direction of water-flow in certain nearby waterways. They also suck up Delta fish such as the once-abundant but now-endangered Delta smelt. A peripheral canal could end these problems.
But the water that flows through the canal would result in that much less water flowing through the Delta and eventually to the Bay. By removing fresh-water inflow to the Delta, a canal would allow salt water from the ocean to intrude deeper into the Delta. There would be less fresh water to flush out pollutants.
Depending upon its desigin, a canal could allow an increase in the volume of water exported, even though the current volume is already causing problems. A canal based on current design ideas would be large enough to capture almost all the water flowing down the Sacramento River most of the year, making the Delta a stagnant cesspool.
In the past, there has been talk about making a peripheral canal more acceptable by writing into law an enforceable maximum on water exports, but this is not in the current proposal. In fact, the Committee would put off until 2012 - a year after starting canal construction - the determination of how much water is required for the survival of native species, but past experience has demonstrated that once a facility is built, it will be used - whether or not it makes sense.
If the governor tries to build a canal, almost surely legal challenges will follow.
Restoration
The cabinet Committee has its priorities backwards. The first consideration should be to restore the Delta ecosystem to sustainability. Any volume of water export should be considered only if compatible with that goal.
The Delta Vision Committee indeed recommends restoration of Delta aquatic habitats - but without sufficient freshwater, no habitat restoration can restore viable fish populations.
A federal marshal to the rescue
On the brighter side, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently released a new Biological Opinion to protect the delta smelt under the federal Endangered Species Act. The opinion requires curtailment of water exports during times of year when Delta smelt are spawning and when larvae and juveniles are present - which would result in a 17% reduction in pumping from the current over-inflated volumes during average water years. A previous Biological Opinion claimed that the water exports did not threaten survival of the species, but that conclusion was litigated by environmentalists and ruled to be "arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law".
Other fish, including salmon, depend on freshwater flows into the Delta. Central Valley salmon numbers have dropped so drastically that last year all salmon fishing off California and Oregon was prohibited, and a similar ban is expected for this year. A separate Biological Opinion for salmon is scheduled for release in March.
A much more balanced idea
The non-partisan state Legislative Analyst's Office recently released a "Water Primer" with insightful recommendations:
Water-supply reliability. For the short term, the legislative priorities should be to improve urban water-use efficiency and groundwater storage, and secondarily to increase agricultural water-use efficiency. For the long-term, the priorities should be to recycle more municipal wastewater, and secondarily to improve conveyance, desalination, and reservoir projects. Urban water-use efficiency is both the most cost-beneficial and the largest potential water producer of all of the solutions evaluated. The analyst found that urban water-use efficiency could save four times as much water as the governor's proposed dams, at 1/10 the cost per gallon.
Modification of the water-rights system. Water rights for both agriculture and cities should incorporate cost-effective water conservation and efficiency. Through realignment of "water conservation and efficiency efforts with water rights, overuse of water simply to maintain a water right could be reduced and that water would be available for other purposes within the region or state."
groundwater management. The state should establish a water-rights and -permitting system for groundwater to address both quantity and quality, with the cost of the regulatory system to be borne by those who use and pollute groundwater.
conveyance and new reservoirs. Legislators should evaluate the Delta Vision recommendations for conveyance and new and expanded reservoirs, carefully considering the costs, trade-offs (including environmental and land-use impacts), and benefits of each alternative. Funding for implementation of any alternative should be based on the principal that the beneficiary pays.
WhatYouCanDo
Write to:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814
Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg
State Capitol, #205
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Urge them to oppose construction of new reservoirs, and to support cost-effective and more sustainable alternatives: water conservation, water-use efficiency, water recycling, clean-up of groundwater, increased groundwater storage, and conjunctive use (the combined use of surface and ground water systems to optimize resource use and minimize impacts of using a single water source). Urge them to curtail water exports from the Delta system.
David Nesmith, facilitator, Environmental Water Caucus; and Jody Zaitlin, EWF volunteer
http://sfbay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2009/03/conservation6.htm
From the Modesto Bee;
Wednesday, Sep. 19, 2007
"San Joaquin supervisors oppose Peripheral Canal"
Board cites increased risk of flooding, loss of agricultural land
By INGA MILLER
imiller [at] modbee.com
STOCKTON -- A canal between the Sacramento River and pumps near Tracy would damage the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, dry farms and provide a straw for Southern California to suck the region's water, San Joaquin County Supervisors said Tuesday.
The board voted unanimously to oppose the Peripheral Canal, which is among the options under study by state officials. Proponents say it would secure a safe water supply for communities south of Tracy in the event of an earthquake and protect the delta's fragile ecosystem.
But county officials argued the canal would do neither and instead invite a host of problems.
AT A GLANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ISSUE: Peripheral Canal
WHAT IT IS: 44-mile canal would divert Sacramento River water to state and federal pumps near Tracy, bypassing the delta.
WHY: Help restore the delta and provide another water source for areas to the south should an earthquake wrack the delta and render the water undrinkable.
COST: $4.3 billion preliminary estimate
CONTROVERSY: San Joaquin County Supervisors say the canal would hurt the area around the delta.
HOW:
Taking over prime agricultural land and maybe urban areas
Leaking from the canal onto neighboring land
Impairing utilities and roads
Creating new flood dangers to agriculture and urban areas
Harming water rights and quality
Harming fish, wildlife and recreation
ALTERNATIVE:
Continue to transfer water from the Sacramento River through bolstered, existing delta channels. One would be 48 miles of reinforced levee with a preliminary estimate of $9.8 billion.
WHAT SUPERVISORS ARE DOING:
They voted unanimously Tuesday to oppose the plan.
The county will send a letter stating its position to the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley. The partnership was created by Gov. Schwarzenegger to make recommendations for improving the region's economy and quality of life.
WHAT'S NEXT: State officials are hammering out a ballot measure expected to go to voters sometime next year and which might include the Peripheral Canal.
HISTORY:
San Joaquin County supervisors voted to oppose a canal in 1982, 1992 and 1998
State voters rejected the canal in 1982. A key complaint was that it would make it too easy to run water to Southern California.
"As far as I'm concerned, Southern California's thirst shouldn't be quenched at San Joaquin County's expense," Supervisor Steve Gutierrez said before making a motion to oppose the canal. "There are other options for Southern California, and they just look at this as the easy straw."
Gov. Schwarzenegger has praised the canal as a protective measure for ensuring safe drinking water should a massive flood or earthquake break levees in the delta and allow saltwater to flood in.
The irony is that the canal would be subject to an earthquake, too, said Thomas Flinn, the county's public works director.
"We don't see there being any true benefit to the county, and the impacts are numerous," he said.
Among them are increased risk of flooding, seepage of water from the canal onto adjoining land, agricultural land lost and the potential for losing water rights.
Then "there is still the philosophical problem that we still need to keep enough water in the delta to keep the delta healthy," Flinn said. "And in dry times, it would be very tempting for people to take all the water they can through the canal, and then the delta would become very saline."
The temptation for the state to divert water south and leave area farmers in the lurch became all too apparent during the past two droughts, in 1976-1977 and in 1991-1992, when the state suspended water rights, said Dante John Nomellini, who represents the Central Delta Water Agency.
"It boils down to the emergency power of government," he told supervisors. "They sus-pended all water rights and contracts and basically instituted martial law. The conduct of the state in the past has demonstrated they have not acted in a way that suggests they would act in good faith in the future. The delta smelt ... is an example of the operators running rough-shod over what is clearly known to be a very sensitive part of the delta."
entire article @;
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/71525.html
Some quotes from northern CA Reps;
Northern California Dems oppose peripheral canal
By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Thursday, July 24th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Five Northern California members of Congress issued a joint statement opposing talk of building a peripheral canal as a means to solve the crisis in the Delta.
The five lawmakers — Democratic Reps. Ellen Tauscher, George Miller, Doris Matsui, Mike Thompson, and Jerry McNerney — represent areas of California from as far north as the Trinity River to the Sacramento River watershed and many Delta communities. They issued the following comments.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Alamo): “The solution to the Delta’s problems will not come from new plumbing alone - we must reduce the amount of water we divert from the Delta, invest in alternative water supplies, and reform the management of our water supply systems. We need a careful analysis of the project proposed by this new PPIC report before moving forward. Congress and the federal government must do their part to ensure that the Central Valley Project is managed to restore the state’s fisheries and reduce unsustainable water allocations. This new report from the PPIC should not be used as a reason to short-circuit the planning processes already underway.”
Rep. George Miller (D-Martinez), former chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee: “Last century’s water fights are old news. It’s past time for us to develop a sustainable water policy for all Californians. Any water plan that focuses on exports and excludes the protection of the Bay-Delta is a non-starter, as it has been for the last thirty years. The Bay-Delta estuary is vital to our region’s economy, our fishermen, farmers, and cities. The PPIC report should not be used to ignore the many things that can be done today to restore Delta health, including providing necessary fish flows, undertaking critical ecosystem restoration projects, and making major investments in water recycling and improved conservation measures.”
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento): “Those of us who represent the Delta region and its watershed know that the peripheral canal is not likely to solve our challenges, from the disappearance of our state’s iconic salmon fishery to the repair and management of the fragile levees that support our communities. The bottom line is that we need to come up with solutions for California that don’t rely on taking more and more water out of the Delta and the Sacramento River.”
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-St. Helena): “Fishing families have paid an extremely high price for the Bush Administration’s illegal water policies. These policies killed over 80,000 salmon on the Klamath River and brought the Sacramento River king salmon stocks - considered the “driver” of all Pacific Northwest salmon - to the lowest levels on record, shutting down the entire fishing season for California and Oregon. The State of California estimates that the total economic impact of these closures to its fishing communities is more than $240 million. Now the State is considering a peripheral canal, which the PPIC report states could have ‘major (negative) effects on salmon?’ This is ridiculous. We are only now starting to right the wrongs of the Bush Administration’s illegal water plans. The debate about the peripheral canal is adding insult to injury to California’s fishing communities.”
Rep. Jerry McNerney (D-Tracy): “As our state’s population continues to grow, so do our water needs. We have to figure out a way that makes sense to ensure the health of the Delta and provide water for agricultural, industrial, and residential uses. But California voters rejected a peripheral canal in 1982 and proposing the same conveyance is the wrong solution. I do not support such a proposal.”
Last month, the five legislators strongly cautioned the Bush Administration against weakening protections for California’s Bay-Delta region. The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is the most valuable estuary ecosystem on the west coast of North or South America and provides fresh water to more than a third of all Californians.
The two studies released this week recommend actions to state and federal policymakers so that California’s salmon fishery can be revived and the Bay-Delta estuary restored to health, without threatening the state’s water supply:
“Water: Finding the Balance” by the Environmental Defense Fund: http://www.edf.org/article.cfm?contentID=8112
“Fish Out of Water” by the Natural Resources Defense Fund, the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, and Water 4 Fish: http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/salmon/contents.asp
article found @;
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2008/07/24/northern-california-dems-oppose-peripheral-canal/
Hope that this helps people with ideas for public comment, there are plenty more sites with detailed info on the risks of the peripheral canal, and why increasing water conservation and converting to drought tolerant crops would be better alternatives..
Best wishes for the fishes!!
The public comment on the in-water geotechnical test drilling should also be about the purpose of the testing being for an unsustainable peripheral canal project, though not sure if the comment readers in state government would discard any comments not specific to the test drilling itself..
Personally am more concerned about the peripheral canal than the test drilling, as the test drilling is only for the sole purpose of building the peri-canal should give comments some leeway to explain reasons why they are against the test drilling is that it is a waste of time and money as we are oppossed to the peri-canal, the subject of the drilling itself. If there was no intent to build the peri-canal, the test drilling would be irrelevant..
Here's a sample letter opposing the in-water geotechnical test drilling, though mostly for the reason of opposition to the peripheral canal, not the test drilling itself, only that it is connected to the canal..
This is the email address the comment was sent to;
mbeachle [at] water.ca.gov
Greetings;
Am voicing opposition to any preliminary in-water geotechnical test
drilling for the peripheral canal. The testing for a project that is
already known to entail numerous risks is wasteful and pointless.
Regardless of the locations of the in-water drilling sites, there are
numerous problems that would be probable to occur if this peripheral canal is constructed. Despite the promise of benefits by diverting water
upstream of the pumps, the risks far outweigh any positive outcome.
The structure of the peripheral canal would increase exports to the San
Joaquin agribusinesses by enabling greater volume of freshwater to flow southwards from the delta. By reducing the amount of fresh river water entering the delta, the peripheral canal also allows salt water to intrude further inland, as fresh river water is no longer present in enough quantity to flush out the salt water intrusion.
Climate change scientists agree that an increase in sea level is an
outcome of above average temperatures over the next few decades.
Considering that the peripheral canal would exist during and after this
time frame, futher risks of saline intrusions are now amplified by sea
level rise from global warming. The elevation of the geotechnical in-water test sites at their highest point in Clarksburg are not enough to prevent saline water from entering the system further inland, thus disrupting the delta ecosystem.
In addition any conveyance structure of such magnitude as the proposed peripheral canal will lose significant quantities of water to seepage out of the conveyance system. This water is lost to both fish and farmers, and only contributes to growth of weeds along the peripheral canal, requiring constant maintenance for removal.
There are several alternatives to peripheral canal conveyance structures, such as; water conservation through drip line irrigation, conversion of water dependant crops like cotton and lettuce (inappropriate for San Joaquin's dry and hot climate) to drought tolerant desert natives like tepary bean (high protein content, needs little to no irrigation), edible nopales cactus and jojoba (oil for industrial and cosmetic uses) as examples. By reducing their yearly demand on water by growing crops evolved and adapted to the dry climate, water demands will decrease and the farms can remain in business without killing the delta ecosystem by removing large volumes of fresh water.
Following the model of Orange County's wastewater recycling system would benefit every municipality by becoming more efficient. The process is safe, environmentally friendly and far less expensive or risky than the proposed peripheral canal.
Finally my comment includes a quote by Rep. Doris Matsui, that more
exports out of the delta by pumps or a peripheral canal is not the answer to CA's water crisis. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will not work well for anyone;
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento): “Those of us who represent the Delta region and its watershed know that the peripheral canal is not likely to solve our challenges, from the disappearance of our state’s iconic salmon fishery to the repair and management of the fragile levees that support our communities. The bottom line is that we need to come up with solutions for California that don’t rely on taking more and more water out of the Delta and the Sacramento River.”
Thank you for your time, please consider the most viable option is to
cease and desist from any further testing towards the peripheral canal.
The people of CA deserve to have out tax money spent on more worthwhile options to solving our water crisis.
Signed,
Sammy Sturgeon (your real name here)
Anyone can copy or rewrite anything into their own words from this letter, am feeling the reasons are excess freshwater transfer out of the delta leading to saline intrusions and delta losing fresh water. Then the possible leaks, flooding and ruptures along the canal route would also be good focus points..
Depending on public comment is limiting our options, so maybe we'll need to figure out other ways of stopping the peripheral canal if this doesn't work. Protests and possible land occupation of San Joaquin agribusinesses to expose their wastefullness of water and implicate them as the primary sponsors and beneficiaries of the peri-canal are some other ideas..
Personally am more concerned about the peripheral canal than the test drilling, as the test drilling is only for the sole purpose of building the peri-canal should give comments some leeway to explain reasons why they are against the test drilling is that it is a waste of time and money as we are oppossed to the peri-canal, the subject of the drilling itself. If there was no intent to build the peri-canal, the test drilling would be irrelevant..
Here's a sample letter opposing the in-water geotechnical test drilling, though mostly for the reason of opposition to the peripheral canal, not the test drilling itself, only that it is connected to the canal..
This is the email address the comment was sent to;
mbeachle [at] water.ca.gov
Greetings;
Am voicing opposition to any preliminary in-water geotechnical test
drilling for the peripheral canal. The testing for a project that is
already known to entail numerous risks is wasteful and pointless.
Regardless of the locations of the in-water drilling sites, there are
numerous problems that would be probable to occur if this peripheral canal is constructed. Despite the promise of benefits by diverting water
upstream of the pumps, the risks far outweigh any positive outcome.
The structure of the peripheral canal would increase exports to the San
Joaquin agribusinesses by enabling greater volume of freshwater to flow southwards from the delta. By reducing the amount of fresh river water entering the delta, the peripheral canal also allows salt water to intrude further inland, as fresh river water is no longer present in enough quantity to flush out the salt water intrusion.
Climate change scientists agree that an increase in sea level is an
outcome of above average temperatures over the next few decades.
Considering that the peripheral canal would exist during and after this
time frame, futher risks of saline intrusions are now amplified by sea
level rise from global warming. The elevation of the geotechnical in-water test sites at their highest point in Clarksburg are not enough to prevent saline water from entering the system further inland, thus disrupting the delta ecosystem.
In addition any conveyance structure of such magnitude as the proposed peripheral canal will lose significant quantities of water to seepage out of the conveyance system. This water is lost to both fish and farmers, and only contributes to growth of weeds along the peripheral canal, requiring constant maintenance for removal.
There are several alternatives to peripheral canal conveyance structures, such as; water conservation through drip line irrigation, conversion of water dependant crops like cotton and lettuce (inappropriate for San Joaquin's dry and hot climate) to drought tolerant desert natives like tepary bean (high protein content, needs little to no irrigation), edible nopales cactus and jojoba (oil for industrial and cosmetic uses) as examples. By reducing their yearly demand on water by growing crops evolved and adapted to the dry climate, water demands will decrease and the farms can remain in business without killing the delta ecosystem by removing large volumes of fresh water.
Following the model of Orange County's wastewater recycling system would benefit every municipality by becoming more efficient. The process is safe, environmentally friendly and far less expensive or risky than the proposed peripheral canal.
Finally my comment includes a quote by Rep. Doris Matsui, that more
exports out of the delta by pumps or a peripheral canal is not the answer to CA's water crisis. Robbing Peter to pay Paul will not work well for anyone;
Rep. Doris Matsui (D-Sacramento): “Those of us who represent the Delta region and its watershed know that the peripheral canal is not likely to solve our challenges, from the disappearance of our state’s iconic salmon fishery to the repair and management of the fragile levees that support our communities. The bottom line is that we need to come up with solutions for California that don’t rely on taking more and more water out of the Delta and the Sacramento River.”
Thank you for your time, please consider the most viable option is to
cease and desist from any further testing towards the peripheral canal.
The people of CA deserve to have out tax money spent on more worthwhile options to solving our water crisis.
Signed,
Sammy Sturgeon (your real name here)
Anyone can copy or rewrite anything into their own words from this letter, am feeling the reasons are excess freshwater transfer out of the delta leading to saline intrusions and delta losing fresh water. Then the possible leaks, flooding and ruptures along the canal route would also be good focus points..
Depending on public comment is limiting our options, so maybe we'll need to figure out other ways of stopping the peripheral canal if this doesn't work. Protests and possible land occupation of San Joaquin agribusinesses to expose their wastefullness of water and implicate them as the primary sponsors and beneficiaries of the peri-canal are some other ideas..
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network