Delta locals are right to be concerned. Their way of life will likely change as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is enacted. The Delta ecosystem is so large, so impactful to the entire state, and so damaged by decades of mismanagement that it’s going to take radical, extreme changes to restore – to the extent possible – the habitat.
But Delta locals won’t agree. Their plan is simple, yet completely implausible: self-sufficiency. And it’s best delineated – from their perspective – by a local lawyer and landowner Tom Zuckerman. His idea: communities south of the Delta can be water self-sufficient, and that the best possible course of action is to turn off the pumps that feed the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project.
Talk about a non-starter.
Conservation had to be part of the solution. Both the Governor and water contractors are advancing conservation as a key tenant in the solution to California’s water crisis. However, to go from conservation to regional self-sufficiency is simply too narrow-minded.
We’re all Californians, and California’s water is a statewide resource – regardless of where we as individuals live. In fact, water is a regional and nationwide resource. As an analogy, how would we Northern Californians feel if Oregon and Washington stopped sending cheap electricity from Northwest hydropower projects to us? Would those same folks who were barking “it’s our water” at BDCP scoping meetings applaud our Northwest neighbors if they flipped the electrical export switch to OFF? Would those folks enjoy life by candlelight – embracing energy self-sufficiency?
.jpg)
But should Delta landowners stand by without injecting thoughtful, meaningful commentary in the BDCP process. No way – as I said earlier, they have a lot at stake. Delta locals, and all Northern Californians, should simply ask for a whole solution to Delta ecosystem renewal, which includes more surface storage. Specifically, the Sites Reservoir.
The location for Sites Reservoir sits in an ideal spot for surface storage that supports Delta ecosystem restoration. It’s upstream from the Delta, pulling water from - and resupplying - the Sacramento River. And it’s off-stream. It would be filled and drained via new and existing conveyance options. This provides a unique benefit – the Sites Reservoir will be fish friendly.
Delta locals should insist that the Peripheral Canal II only be built if Sites is also built. They should also tie maximum quantities conveyed via the canal with maximum available output from Sites. And all Northern Californians should insist that water users south of the Delta pay their fair share for Sites and the canal. (Similar to the Southern California lawmakers who insisted that Bay Area bridge users pay for seismic improvements via increased tolls.) As long as the science supports the Peripheral Canal II as the best option to protect both existing water rights statewide, as well as habitat restoration, Delta locals are powerless to reject it – especially when the other so-called option is fanciful concepts like self-sufficiency.
.jpg)
Comments
Jeff, Great post!
Jeff, the "collective conscienceness" boundary between northern and southern California must now have crept somewhere to the north of San Jose, based on your veiws of this issue. It's so easy to dismiss or simply be oblivious to the point of origin impacts when you will not be affected by these projects, except through your monthly water bill.
While regional self-sufficiency is an extreme and unrealistic solution to the water supply problem given the population distribution in CA, translocation of "urban" problems and impacts to the less populated regions of the state is not acceptable either.
I can't wait until investigative reporters start to follow the trail of potential impacts of the various options for solving water supply and conveyance, and discuss these in the context of how impacts in one region are trnaslocated to other regions (think Owens Valley, Mono Lake, and Columbia River salmon, to add to your use of NW power analogy). Same story different places...
Regards.
There are many projects that can improve water deliveries and protect the environment. Sites Reservoir is not one of them! It is a bad idea that just won't die.
First, while there are conveyance facilities that can bring water to the vicinity of Sites, they don't have enough capacity to capture the excess runoff as it is released from Shasta, or generated by upstream watersheds. The existing conveyance capacities would need to be enlarged by a factor of at least 3, and for a signficant distance. Then, there is the power cost to pump that water up to Sites Reservoir.
Sites is not good for the environment because, as we all know, there is a need for additional cold water to release into the Sacramento River to provide adequate temperatures for salmon smolts as they travel down the river in the summer. Sites is a very shallow reservoir and would basically act as a large warming and evaporating bowl. The worst of all situations there is significant water loss from evaporation, and the water that is left is too warm to release into the river without dire consequences.
Your arguments are flawed.
First, Delta residents are not asking for 'self sufficiency' for valley farmers which use 80% of Delta exported water. What they are asking for is, at the least, the minimal freshwater flows through the river\delta system to sustain the ecosystem, salinity levels for local communities and farmers and for a healthy fisheries. Not only for themselves but for all Californians. In no way is that radical, short-sighted or a 'non-starter'. It's actually rather reasonable.
Nowhere in your article do you mention that Delta exports are for farmers mainly. Not 26 million Californians as is so often stated, as if we'd all die from thirst and hunger. A sizable % of what is grown in the valley is exported.
Sites. Already mentioned but lets heat the water, again, on the way to the Bay. Massive exports, no matter where they are taken or stored will have negative effects.
Could you write a column on de-sal plants? The Canal II + Sites would have to be, roughly, in the $20 billion range - how much de-sal water would that buy for farmers and southern California? While leaving the Delta still relatively intact?
can anyone tell me with any real credibility what effect the Peripheral Canal idea would have on the water levels in the ship's canals to Stockton and Sacramento? Those are approx 35 foot deep channels and if the delta water level is dropped by the PC would we not have to re dredge the whole ship canal? $$$$$$$$
Doesn't the water from the Sacramento River flush out San Francisco Bay every year, and if that flow is reduced won't the bay become a giant stagnant pond?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!