[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Item for 7/18/08

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

 

July 18, 2008

 

1.  Top Items -

 

 

 

Dan Walters: Study confirms that peripheral canal is central to solving Delta water problems

The Sacramento Bee- 7/18/08

 

Peripheral canal urged to save the delta

The San Francisco Chronicle- 7/18/08

 

Divisions and diversions

The San Francisco Chronicle- 7/18/08

 

Peripheral canal is key for Delta, fresh water, researchers say

The Sacramento Bee- 7/17/08

 

Report says canal would fix California water woes

The Associated Press- 7/17/08

 

Report says peripheral canal is best solution for Delta woes

The Stockton Record- 7/18/08

 

Peripheral canal is best answer to question of provide water, protect Delta, experts say

The Sacramento Bee- 7/18/08

 

Delta peripheral canal should be built, report concludes

The Contra Costa Times- 7/17/08

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

Dan Walters: Study confirms that peripheral canal is central to solving Delta water problems

The Sacramento Bee- 7/18/08

By Dan Walters

 

A team of researchers with impeccable credentials and unquestionable independence is uttering an inconvenient truth that California and its politicians have ignored for much too long – a peripheral canal is the least expensive, most environmentally positive way to repair the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta while maintaining vital water supplies.

 

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) assembled the team and released its 184-page report on Thursday, quite likely the most important paper PPIC has published in its 14-year history of foundation-supported research.

 

A peripheral canal, which would carry Sacramento River water around the Delta to the head of the California Aqueduct near Tracy, was part of the California Water Plan endorsed by voters in 1960.

 

After the Legislature finally approved a canal in the early 1980s, however, an odd-bedfellows alliance of San Joaquin Valley farmers and environmental groups challenged it via referendum. After a very misleading campaign, voters rejected it in 1982.

 

Ever since, politicians have shied away from a peripheral canal – or the "P-Word," as many in water circles call it – because of its controversial image, even though many water engineers and environmental researchers privately agree with what the PPIC report says publicly.

 

Pulling water from the Delta interferes with natural flows and degrades water quality, thereby damaging wildlife habitat. While stopping exports would, perhaps, solve that problem, it would deprive California of its largest source of water.

 

As PPIC says, the problem will grow more acute if global warming, as expected, raises sea levels, thus putting many Delta agricultural islands in danger of reverting to marshland and making its waters saltier. Meanwhile, a major earthquake could make that happen suddenly as it liquefies Delta levees.

 

With the courts severely restricting water exports from the Delta because of declining fish populations, there has been renewed interest in a peripheral canal, although that term is largely banned from official discourse. But fierce opposition persists, mostly from Delta farmers concerned that a canal would isolate them from public money to fix their deteriorating levees (although they rarely admit to that motive) and from environmental groups that want to use restricted water supply as a tool to curb development in Southern California (although they are equally reluctant to admit that).

 

Environmental groups once supported a peripheral canal as the best Delta fix, but pulled off. While shedding public tears over the Delta's plight, they have been, in effect, willing to sacrifice its environmental health for their other agenda.

 

Many years and countless billions of dollars and human-hours of meetings and studies have been squandered in a vain search for a consensus that does not include a peripheral canal. The PPIC team concludes that it's time to end that charade and do what's been needed for decades.

 

"To be viable," the PPIC team said, "a long-term solution must include governance, regulatory and financial arrangements to ensure that various goals are well served, including water supply, environmental management, and the state's local interests in the Delta. It is unlikely that local and regional stakeholders can negotiate such arrangements on their own in a timely way, given the complexity of the problem and its innumerable stakeholders.

 

Pursuit of a grand consensus solution for the Delta's many issues is likely only to continue the deteriorating status quo."

 

The PPIC report is unlikely to sway a peripheral canal's opponents, but their agendas pale next to the larger public interest in improving the Delta's ecology and assuring the state of a reliable water supply. It's time for that larger interest to assert itself.#

http://www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1091835.html

 

 

 

Peripheral canal urged to save the delta

The San Francisco Chronicle- 7/18/08

Kelly Zito, Chronicle Staff Writer

 

 (07-17) 10:00 PDT -- After decades of thirsty cities and farms sucking water through the fragile Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta - the main valve for California's aging water system - only a man-made pipeline around the estuary can both restore wildlife habitats and provide a safe water supply, according to a new study by an influential research group.

 

Although the idea of a peripheral canal was proposed and defeated more than two decades ago, authors of a report by the Public Policy Institute of California say the clear risks posed by climate change, rising sea levels and earthquakes call for an aggressive approach to fixing the failing delta. Instead of relying on the current labyrinth of earthen levees and channels to flush water from the Sacramento River to giant pumps in the south delta, a peripheral canal would route water around the delta from a more northerly section of the Sacramento River.

 

"The delta is the pre-eminent problem in the long-term sustainability of California's water system," said Jay Lund, a UC Davis engineering professor and one of the authors of the study. "If the delta doesn't work, the system doesn't work."

 

Opponents, however, say a canal could worsen water quality for the 450,000 acres of farmland in the delta and would not bridge the gap between a finite supply and a booming population.

 

"A peripheral canal, first and foremost, will not make more water," said Bill Loyko, president of the steering committee for Restore the Delta, an advocacy group for the communities in the delta. "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."

 

With the delta funneling water to two-thirds of the state's population, it continues to rest at the heart of any debate over water in California. It has come under increased scrutiny over the last few years amid scant rainfall, crumbling levees and a court ruling limiting water pumping to rescue crashing fish populations.

 

1980s' proposal

In the 1980s, a peripheral canal proposal pitted Southern Californians against Northern Californians who feared a water grab. But today, Northern California - and the Bay Area in particular - rely more heavily on the delta, the report's authors said.

 

"If you have no exports (from the delta), the real losers are the Bay Area because they have fewer alternatives for water supply," Lund said.

 

The delta's plight is a sign of the precarious health of the state's system. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., announced a $9.3 billion bond measure last week that would shore up the water system and increase funding for reservoirs, recycling and desalination projects as well as the improvement of the delta.

 

And separately this week, an important state advisory panel is meeting in Sacramento to discuss the feasibility of another solution - called a "dual conveyance" system, which combines a pipeline and continued pumping through a repaired delta, which relies mostly on a series of levees to channel water to users.

 

But researchers at the Public Policy Institute, which relied on a half-dozen experts from UC Davis, say a combined system offers simply a stopgap between the current system and a peripheral canal. In part, they argue that a peripheral canal would cost less over time because inevitable increases in the delta's salinity would require costly water treatment.

 

Authors of the 184-page report, titled "Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," are expected to brief the state advisory panel on the peripheral canal proposal today.

 

Though all players in the debate over the delta agree it is on life support, there are as many opinions on the cure as there are stakeholders.

 

Some environmental groups question whether the canal would help deteriorating fish populations. Currently, the powerful federal and state pumps chew up such protected species as the delta smelt. What's more, many environmentalists believe the solution to the water crisis requires more sweeping change - including across-the-board conservation, water recycling systems and retiring farmland that is already suffering from salt and chemical buildup.

"We're facing a new normal in California - we're facing climate change, we're becoming drier, period," said Mindy McIntyre, water program manager at the Planning and Conservation League, an environmental lobby. "We need to make our land use, economy, everything, more resilient. We can't sustain (an agriculture) industry which couldn't have been sustained historically, let alone with climate change."

 

Indeed, under the report's recommendations, certain islands within the delta would be abandoned, a prospect that concerns Dante Nomellini, who represents many who farm the hundreds of thousands of acres in the delta.

 

"One cannot simply flood islands without adversely affecting the ecosystem and infrastructure on the surrounding islands," he said.

 

Abandon operations

In fact, some farmers there could be forced to abandon operations altogether under a peripheral canal, which would allow more seawater from San Francisco Bay into the delta. Unlike many other farmers in the Central Valley, who would receive clean water piped from the Sacramento River, growers in the delta would most likely rely on the increasingly salty delta canals for irrigation.

 

"If you're a delta farmer, (a peripheral canal) means you're pumping salt water," said Barry Nelson, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "You're out of business."

 

Construction of the canal would cost between $5 billion and $10 billion, not including maintenance costs.

 

Researchers recommended that consumers and farmers pay to play, said Ellen Hanak, the Public Policy Institute's associate director. The institute is a nonprofit, independent research center.

 

"There's probably a role for (bond money) potentially, but not as a first source and not as a default," Hanak said. "That's something that should complement a funding system that revolves around user support and ecosystem support in the delta."#

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/17/BA3911QA9U.DTL&feed=rss.bayarea

 

 

 

Divisions and diversions

The San Francisco Chronicle- 7/18/08

By Laura Harnish,Cynthia Koehler

 

California is world-renowned for its fresh, healthy food - especially seafood. But our once prolific and profitable salmon fishery is now at its lowest ebb in decades. The salmon season has been closed for the first time ever, resulting in devastating economic losses to the fishing industry.

 

Elements of California's agricultural economy also are suffering losses this summer. The drought has reduced water supplies to farms that have less senior legal rights to water than others, and are thus last in line for water rights. The courts have required further cuts to protect salmon and other endangered fish such as the delta smelt - the "canary in the coal mine" of the bay-delta system.

 

This conflict is far too common. For decades, California has been trapped in a vicious cycle. Water users seek to pump additional fresh water out of Central Valley streams, then fisheries decline and the courts are forced to step in to limit water diversions when catastrophe looms. Uncertainty, conflict and expense have become the dominating factors in California water policy.

 

Water users legitimately maintain that they need a degree of certainty, or reliability, for their water supplies. However, it has become clear that the reliability of the water supply depends upon the reliability of the environment; water supply for agriculture can only become more reliable when the water needs for salmon and the bay-delta ecosystem are reliably met. California must acknowledge what is needed to assure that these resources can rebound and remain healthy - particularly in the face of looming climate change.

 

However, crisis often begets opportunity and innovation. Rejuvenated efforts are under way to address the bay-delta's water supply, infrastructure and fishery crises, notably through the governor's delta task force, which appears willing to tackle this issue from a fresh perspective.

 

The task force and others are considering, as part of a solution for the state's water problems, a Peripheral Canal - basically a large ditch or pipe that would bring water around the delta instead of through it. Voters solidly rejected a canal in 1982, but it may be that in a post-Katrina, climate-changing world, a new and improved Peripheral Canal has merit. However, new infrastructure for our water supply cannot be considered without also meeting the needs of the bay-delta ecosystem and restoring its fisheries.

 

Any proposals for new infrastructure, whether a Peripheral Canal or new water storage, must go beyond lip service about restoring salmon, and actually do it. There must be a complete package that ensures sustainable restoration of the delta's valuable fisheries. We need to provide the water that fish need when and where they need it. There must be money available to ensure that key restoration projects are not merely planned, but executed. We need to create financial incentives that will encourage everyone to do a far better job of conserving water. Most critically, we need guarantees that our water managers will be held accountable to ensure that promises are kept.

 

Last week, the governor announced a new $9.3 billion water bond proposal. California has spent close to $5 billion since 2000 on similar efforts without appreciably resolving its water supply and salmon conflicts. These efforts appear to have failed at least in part because politically difficult issues, such as providing reliable water for fish, were sidestepped in favor of less controversial projects. We welcome the opportunity to work with the governor and the Legislature in crafting a new approach that breaks through the decades-old logjam, and focuses on not only reliable water supplies, but also on reliable salmon supplies.

 

The choices that we make over the next year may well determine whether California will have a viable salmon fishery, and fishing industry, in the future. We believe that our children and grandchildren can enjoy a San Francisco estuary teeming with nutritious salmon and other fish, while farms are able to provide food and jobs because they have a reliable water supply.#

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/17/EDKA11Q6V1.DTL

 

 

 

Peripheral canal is key for Delta, fresh water, researchers say

The Sacramento Bee- 7/17/08

By Matt Weiser

 

A team of UC Davis researchers today is recommending that a peripheral canal is the best solution to restore the Delta environment and protect the fresh water that moves through it to millions of people and business in California.

 

California voters rejected a peripheral canal in 1982, amid opposition from some scientists and environmental groups who feared it would deprive the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta of critical freshwater flows.

 

But times have changed. Worsening environmental conditions in the estuary have resulted in court-imposed cutbacks in Delta water exports. And new understanding about threats from climate change, floods and earthquakes have put a canal back on the bargaining table.

 

A peripheral canal would divert a portion of Sacramento River flows, near the town of Hood, into an isolated channel. That water would then be carried directly to state and federal water export pumps near Tracy. Those pumps divert Delta water to 23 million residents of the Bay Area and Southern California, and they kill fish and alter natural water flows in the process.

 

In a report released today by the Public Policy Institute of California, six UC Davis professors say a peripheral canal is the only sustainable solution to the Delta's water woes. It is cheaper than other options and provides significant benefits for fish.

 

"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.

 

The report and a six-page summary are available for download today at the institute's website: http://www.ppic.org.#

http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/1088361.html

 

 

 

Report says canal would fix California water woes

The Associated Press- 7/17/08

By SAMANTHA YOUNG Associated Press Writer

SACRAMENTO—A quarter century ago, Californians overwhelmingly rejected the state's ambitious plan to pipe water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to provide clean, plentiful supplies to a booming Southern California.

 

A report released Thursday by the Public Policy Institute of California argues that much has changed since then. Californians should give the idea another look if they want to keep water flowing to some 25 million people and save the delta's fragile ecosystem, the report says.

 

"Building a peripheral canal is not without controversy, but it appears to be the best way to maintain a reliable water supply," said Ellen Hanak, the institute's associate director.

 

Today two-thirds of Californians rely on the delta, a maze of levees, canals and sinking islands that channel snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada to state and federal pumping stations.

 

But that system appears to have a short lifespan. Fragile levees that could crumble in an earthquake or flood, rising oceans caused by global climate change and court-mandated pumping limits to protect fish are forcing Californians to rethink their water-delivery system.

 

The PPIC report recommends California build a canal to pipe fresh water from the Sacramento River around the delta instead of continuing to send it through a changing and unstable estuary.

 

By rerouting one of the state's key water supplies, a canal could help native fish that are now being killed when they are sucked into the delta's massive water pumps.

 

The study says continuing to channel water through the delta's maze of levees is risky and costly. It also concludes that fortifying all 74 of the delta's islands—most of which are surrounded by narrow channels of water—would be a waste of taxpayer money.

 

Projected sea level rise of up to 3 feet, increased runoff from early spring snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada and a 90 percent chance that more than half the delta's islands could flood by mid-century would cost Californians much more than building and operating a canal, the study says.

 

"Ultimately there are two choices: no exports or a peripheral canal. Keeping the delta as it is, is not one of them," said co-author Jay Lund, an engineering professor at the University of California, Davis.

 

Leaving the delta alone is just what California voters decided in 1982 when they defeated a ballot initiative to build a so-called peripheral canal.

 

The measure was rejected soundly, largely on the strength of Northern California voters who feared the proposal was nothing more than a water grab by Southern California agencies.

 

Since then, the Public Policy Institute said the delta's health has declined rapidly and global climate change is raising alarm about California's long-term water supply.

 

The latest proposals for a canal are much smaller in size than the 1982 proposal. They would set aside water for fish and do not attempt to increase the amount of water diverted from Northern California.

 

"Now the focus is on restoring reliability to the existing system, not on expanding exports," said Hanak, of the institute. "The environmental issues in the delta have become more acute, and I think people realize the way we move water is not good for the fish."

 

Water agencies and irrigation districts throughout California are increasingly receptive to the idea of a peripheral canal. But those who draw their water directly out of the delta fear the potential consequences.

 

They say diverting a portion of fresh Sacramento River water before it flows into the delta will leave the water saltier, overwhelmed by tidal action from San Francisco Bay.

 

"I think they came to the wrong solution. You can't abandon the delta," said Greg Gartrell, assistant general manager at the Contra Costa Water District, which serves 500,000 people with delta water. "They basically assume away the entire delta community."

 

Additionally, some environmentalists say the canal might trap migrating salmon and other fish that swim in the Sacramento River.

 

The Public Policy Institute proposed two routes for a canal, both starting a few miles south of Sacramento. One proposal places a canal on the west side of the delta roughly following the deepwater shipping channel, while the other runs down the eastern side.

 

Democrat Lois Wolk, 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."

 

Separately, a panel created by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to examine delta solutions is considering several possible routes for a canal. The options are projected to cost between $4 billion and $17 billion to build.

 

Although building a canal carries a high price tag, the report estimates it would cost Californians much less in the long-run than relying on a vulnerable delta. Costs to fortify levees, treat increasingly salty water to make it suitable for drinking and repair broken levees could run between $550 million to $1.9 billion a year by 2050.

 

Schwarzenegger and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein also are urging the state Legislature to approve a $9.3 billion bond to build new reservoirs and fund statewide conservation projects. While the governor supports building a canal, his bond does not set aside construction money because water agencies have said they would pay for it.#

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_9910627

 

 

 

Report says peripheral canal is best solution for Delta woes

The Stockton Record- 7/18/08

By Alex Breitler, Staff Writer

 

SACRAMENTO - A peripheral canal is the best medicine for an ailing Delta, a group of experts said Thursday, a conclusion immediately attacked by local farmers, fishermen and environmentalists.

 

A report by the nonprofit Public Policy Institute of California admits that a canal routing water around the Delta isn't the top choice for fish but says it is economically superior to halting water exports to other portions of California.

 

The money that is saved by securing a reliable water supply could then be put toward the Delta's damaged ecosystem.

 

"Ultimately, there are two choices: no (water) exports or a peripheral canal. Keeping the Delta as it is is not one of them," said co-author Jay Lund, an engineering professor at the University of California, Davis.

 

One of the canal's most outspoken opponents, Stockton attorney Dante Nomellini, had this to say: "The basic thrust of their effort is to try and maintain exports from the Delta and turn the Delta into a saltwater bay."

 

Traditionally, water from the Sacramento River has been sucked through the Delta's many channels to pumps near Tracy, which send the water as far south as San Diego but also west to portions of the Bay Area.

 

Supporters of a canal argue that the levees are too fragile to support this method any longer. A canal skirting the Delta would in theory eliminate the levee problem.

 

It would also eliminate freshwater flows into the Delta, endangering fish and crippling farmers, opponents say. It would reduce incentives to maintain levees and lead to widespread collapses.

 

A peripheral canal was shot down by voters in 1982. A panel appointed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, however, is considering it once again, including the option of building a canal while still allowing some water to flow through the estuary.

 

The PPIC weighed in on the Delta debate last year, issuing a report saying the Delta was no longer sustainable. Now it presents what it considers the best solution: a canal.

 

Under the status quo, the cost of maintaining levees will be "extremely high," the report says, "outstripping" the value of many Delta islands and exceeding what the public is willing to pay for repairs.

 

Among the experts' conclusions:

» "Restoring" the Delta is an unrealistic notion. It will never be the same.

 

» If some islands are flooded, habitat for fish will expand.

 

» Forces imperiling the Delta, such as sea level rise and earthquakes, could be disastrous the way water is moved now but would have little impact on a canal.

 

» Those who receive exported water should be the ones to pay for a canal.

 

» The size of the canal should not be limited.

 

» Officials could create a "constitutional protection" limiting water exports.

 

"Oh, sure," Nomellini said.

 

"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."

 

Republican Dave Cogdill of Modesto called the report a "thoughtful examination" that should encourage lawmakers to "take action on this crisis sooner rather than later."

 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.#

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080718/A_NEWS/807180318

 

 

 

Peripheral canal is best answer to question of provide water, protect Delta, experts say

The Sacramento Bee- 7/18/08

By Matt Weiser

 

 

The peripheral canal was once like plutonium in California water politics, yet a new report embraces it as the answer to environmental problems threatening the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

 

The report released Thursday by a team of UC Davis experts and the Public Policy Institute of California, says a peripheral canal is the best way to balance the state economy's thirst for Delta water against the environmental consequences.

 

The report reflects a change in thinking now under way in government and academia.

 

"The Delta is the pre-eminent problem in the long-term sustainability of California's water supply system," said Jay Lund, a UC Davis professor of environmental engineering and one of seven co-authors of the report. "Ultimately there are two choices: no exports or a peripheral canal. Keeping the Delta as it is, is not one of them."

 

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger already has directed the state Department of Water Resources to begin preliminary designs for canals to divert water around or through the Delta. His appointed Delta Vision blue-ribbon panel also is studying canals.

 

The Delta is the hub of the state's fresh water system, serving 23 million Californians from huge state and federal pumping systems near Tracy.

 

But environmental troubles this year limited deliveries to protect declining fish species. In the long run, deliveries could be cut permanently by a rise in sea level, floods or earthquakes.

 

A peripheral canal would protect against those threats, diverting some Sacramento River water into an isolated channel that leads to the pumps. Theoretically, this also would prevent the pumps from killing threatened fish and altering water flows within the Delta.

 

California voters rejected the idea in 1982, fearing it was a Southern California water grab. Many questions remain unanswered about a canal project today, such as how it would affect salmon in the Sacramento River, and whether adequate rules could be devised to limit diversions.

 

"We do not have confidence that it would be built and maintained in a way that wouldn't bring about greater harm to the Delta," said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, campaign director of Restore the Delta, a Stockton-based coalition of farm and environmental groups.

 

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.

 

A recent preliminary report by the state estimated costs for a peripheral canal at between $4.2 billion and $7.4 billion but didn't account for costs such as pumping plants and environmental protection.

 

Canal costs should be covered by water diverters, not taxpayers, the authors said.

 

Recently, some policymakers have come to favor a "dual conveyance" approach they believe would allow more flexibility – a peripheral canal and a "through-Delta" canal built from existing levees.

 

The Public Policy Institute rejects this, saying a through-Delta canal eventually would be doomed by sea-level rise or earthquakes. A peripheral canal, they found, would be cheaper and more effective.

 

"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.

 

A peripheral canal should be coupled with broad habitat improvements, the authors said. Water diverters should also pay for these measures, and they should include intentionally flooding certain islands for habitat, and decisions not to recover others that flood naturally.

 

An analysis conducted as part of the report found that more than half the Delta's islands don't support enough economic activity to justify rebuilding after a flood.

 

Steve Mello, a second-generation farmer on Tyler Island in Sacramento County, objects to that analysis. The report found the island's levees may not be worth rebuilding after a flood.

 

Mello, president of the local levee maintenance district, said the island is home to many businesses important to the area's agriculture industry, as well as two natural gas pipelines serving the entire state. The levee district is also in the midst of a multimillion-dollar effort to improve levees to meet federal standards.

 

"We need a certain critical mass of acres in the Delta to support our farm industry," he said. "The legacy that my mother and father worked a lifetime to create is something worthy of being carried on."#

http://www.sacbee.com/378/story/1091869.html

 

 

 

Delta peripheral canal should be built, report concludes

The Contra Costa Times- 7/17/08

By Mike Taugher

A team of experts says the best way to fix California's troubled water system is to build a peripheral canal that would deliver water around the Delta rather than through it.

 

The report concludes that a canal would be the cheapest economic alternative and the best choice for the environment short of cutting off 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 conducted by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California and written by several leading Delta experts, mostly at UC Davis.

 

In essence, the report finds that the Delta, the weak link in a system that delivers water 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 method of taking water with giant pumps in the south Delta is already wreaking havoc on protected fish populations to the point that water managers are being forced under court order to curtail water deliveries.

 

In response, the state should build a canal now to shield the economy from the effects of a major failure.

 

Big water agencies enthusiastically welcomed the report while others, including the Contra Costa Water District, were skeptical.

 

"It makes some fundamental mistakes with ivory tower assumptions," said Contra Costa Water District assistant general manager Greg Gartrell.

 

The report, Gartrell said, writes off Delta farmers who could be forced out of business and assumes that the state's biggest water users would be willing to pay $5 billion to $10 billion or more for a canal that at least one study has shown could not deliver the same amount of Delta water that they have been getting in recent years.

 

But the biggest flaw, according to Gartrell, is that the study assumes regulations, laws or public agencies will be able to limit the flow of water through a large canal. If too much water is taken through a canal, it could increase the concentration of salts, pesticides and other pollution in the Delta and possibly damage salmon populations.

 

Rather than building a small canal that could have no more than a minimal effect on the flow of fresh water into the Delta, the team recommends a large one be built to ensure it can take a lot of water at appropriate times.

 

But how to ensure that the canal is not overused to the detriment of the Delta water quality and water supplies in the northern part of the state?

 

"(There's a) lack of trust, and for good reason," Gartrell said.

 

The report mostly dismissed a hybrid option, which has gained a lot of support recently, of using a small canal in combination with channels that now deliver water through the Delta. The state should recognize that existing channels would eventually fail due to the sea level rising and the possibility of a major earthquake.

 

"That's another reason not to build the canal too small," said Ellen Hanak, a Public Policy Institute of California economist and co-author.

 

Environmentalists were also cautious.

 

"Whether or not a peripheral canal is determined to be the preferred solution remains to be seen after it undergoes thorough scientific scrutiny and evaluation," said Ann Hayden, a water policy analyst at the Environmental Defense Fund, adding that the key is for more fresh water to flow through the Delta.

 

Voters rejected a canal in 1982 because of overwhelming opposition in the Bay Area and the rest of Northern California.

 

Residents in Contra Costa County and elsewhere near the Delta were concerned that by taking more freshwater out of the Delta, the canal would make the Delta saltier and more polluted.

 

Now, however, large populations in the East Bay and South Bay are more dependent on the Delta water system, leading canal supporters to conclude it will be more politically viable today than it was a quarter-century ago.

 

Hanak said the cost to the state of phasing out the use of Delta water across California would range between $1.5 billion and $2.5 billion a year, less than 1 percent of the state's gross domestic product.

 

"It (eliminating water deliveries from the Delta) is not going to destroy the California economy," she said, adding that the impact would be severe for San Joaquin Valley agriculture.

 

"It's much more expensive than the other options," she added.

 

Delta smelt would stand a 60 percent chance of survival if Delta water deliveries were halted, a 40 percent chance with a peripheral canal and about a 30 percent chance if no changes are made, the report said.

 

A viable commercial salmon fishery in California is about 80 percent assured without Delta water exports, about 50 percent with a canal and about 30 percent under the status quo, it said.

 

The report, "Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta," was written by Lund, Hanak, engineer William Fleenor, biologist William Bennett, economist Richard Howitt, geologist Jeffrey Mount and biologist Peter Moyle.#

http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_9912256?nclick_check=1