Will Peripheral Canal Be Considered After the August Recess?
Steve Evans
California Progress Report
07/27/2009
The controversial Peripheral Canal may or may not be included in a package of water bills that the Legislature expects to take up after its arduous budget battle and the August recess. The water package will likely propose an appointed council or water master to manage water operations, provide overall direction for ecosystem restoration, and attempt to implement the Governor’s goal of reducing water use by 20%. Some capitol insiders claim that the package will not expressly authorize the giant canal, which will divert massive quantities of fresh water around the beleaguered estuary for export to the southern Central Valley and southern California.
It is also unclear whether this initial water package will include funding mechanisms, either in the form of a proposed multi-billion dollar general obligation bond (essentially borrowing money in the name of the taxpayers) and/or water fees. The cost of a Peripheral Canal could be at least $10 billion. New or enlarged dams needed to supply water to the canal will cost billions more. Funding is usually the key to California’s convoluted water politics since the typical goal is to get the taxpayers to pay for the water from which only a few benefit.
Even if the water package doesn’t explicitly authorize construction of the controversial Peripheral Canal, it is certainly intended to enable its construction. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a strong proponent of the canal and he believes that it can be constructed without the express authorization of the Legislature.
Whatever the Legislature’s Democratic majority intends to do about water, you can be sure that the Republican caucus will withhold support unless the package also includes authorization and funding for new or enlarged dams. Dams on the Republican’s “must do” list include the enlargement of that Shasta Dam, the Sites Offstream Reservoir in the Sacramento Valley, and the Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River. These expensive dams would produce relatively little new water and will significantly impact the environment.
The original Peripheral Canal was rejected by voters in a statewide referendum in 1982. Large state and federal pumps continue to take about 40% of the fresh water from the Delta for export south. These “through Delta” exports have more than tripled over the last 50 years, reversing flows in Delta channels, degrading water quality, and driving Delta fisheries towards extinction. Many believe that the canal will simply facilitate increased water exports to powerful agribusiness interests, which already use 80% of the developed water in the state.
Southern California developers and southern Central Valley agribusiness are pushing for a canal as wide and as long as the Panama Canal. Some misguided legislators and a few conservation organizations believe that a canal could actually benefit the Delta ecosystem and its endangered fish species. But numerous court decisions have proven that the government’s track record in operating water projects in compliance with environmental laws is less than stellar. There is no reason to assume that the canal, if built, will be operated differently.
There are serious questions as to whether the Peripheral Canal will benefit the Delta’s ecosystem, fisheries, and water quality. The Public Policy Institute of California determined that there is only a 50% likelihood that the Sacramento River salmon population, which is the mainstay of the commercial salmon fishing industry in California and southern Oregon, will remain viable with a Peripheral Canal. The same report found only a 40% likelihood that the Delta smelt would remain viable with a canal.
A recent scientific evaluation of the draft Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, which is closely tied to the canal proposal, found that the benefits of Delta habitat restoration may be off-set by the negative impacts of the Peripheral Canal diversion on Sacramento River salmon. The same report indicated that the canal would do little to improve south Delta water quality or the survival of San Joaquin River salmon population.
Delta farmers and communities fear that the canal will leave the estuary a lifeless cesspool. They are working with conservation organizations and anglers to ensure protections for the Delta in whatever water package that may emerge from the Legislature. This unusual alliance staged a rally for the Delta on the Capitol steps in early July that featured every state legislator representing the region and drew more than a hundred participants, all calling for an open and deliberate debate over the canal and the state’s water issues.
The fact is that California has a water management problem, not necessarily a water supply problem. Every region of the state needs to become more self-sufficient in terms of its water supply and Delta exports must be reduced. This is not nearly as difficult as some believe since state and federal exports from the Delta account for only about 12% of the state’s overall water supply. Numerous studies prove that wise investments in water conservation, recycling/reclamation, and improved groundwater management is far cheaper and will produce far more water than building new dams and an expensive and controversial canal.
