Peripheral Canal

[Frank Alessio]

The news on the radio today stated Gov. Arnold wants the Peripheral Canal built around
The Delta by 2011. They stated that THEY do not even need to put it on the Ballot..

[Darian]

Yep,.... The governator has floated that idea for some time. Of course, he's been off on more than one pronouncement. :rolleyes:

Aside from the fact that the voting public (the best poll of all) already voted it down, there's the small :rolleyes: problem of funding for this project. If it's to be done by selling bonds, bond issues affecting the General Fund do have to go on the ballot. The public shouldn't be approving any further bond issuances as we're spending close to 50% of annual revenues on service of bonded indebtedness, now. We can't keep borrowing for ever.... [-X Or can we.... :confused: If the guv continues to advocate issuing bonds for everything, maybe the state will have to declare Bankruptcy and the Feds'll have to bail us out.... \\:D/

This state now has one of the lowest credit ratings in the country. That translates into high/higher interest rates. All because the state administration and legislature are dysfunctional. Maybe he can convince Westlands or Kern County Water agencies to pay for it.... :question:

[Frank Alessio]

Tristan.... What is (are) "NGO's" ??? Is all of this linked to oregons water wars...?? It does all

travel Downstream........???

[Darian]

And I started off this AM thinking I couldn't possibly hear any worse news.... :confused: It almost sounds like the NGO's have given up on the effort to maintain the Delta as they don't feel there's any real chance to prevail. ](*,)

I AM depressed.... :\\ :\\

[Bob Laskodi]

My only real hope on both the Klamath & Delta Canal issues is that no matter what the politco's want, is that both of these will require voter approval of the bond(s) that will finance both of these idiotic ideas. I sure hope that the voters will choke when they see the price tag of the bonds! Otherwise we're screwed!!!

[Tracy Chimenti]

I still wish they would look at compulsory nuclear powered de-sal. Imagine when they prove that the vaccuming of endangered species at the pumps is the exclusive detrimental factor to the species. At that point, they can leave that canal on 24-7 and not have to worry about vaccuming smelt or any other "pumping restrictions". What will they do with the Tracy, South Bay, and Banks plants? Will they shut them because they have a new canal? Does anyone know if this is in the plan?

I think Moyle and his fellows endorsed the PC on the concept that water managers would play fairly. Politics is not their place.

[dberry]

Well if Rough & Tumble is correct, the Nature Conservancy came out endorsing the peripheral canal today. Sad news for the endangered delta . . .

[wjorg]

Well, what should we do about this?

[Darian]

There's an article in the SacBee, today, that says the Nature Conservancy has given formal, conditional approval to construction of a peripheral canal (....the first of any environmental group). The only condition is that it must work in favor of the Delta environment. Whatever that means.... :confused:

Seems like Tristan is right on. Environmental groups are lining up in favor of the Governor's package.... :rolleyes:

[wjorg]

Who do we contact at the Nature Conservancy about that?

[Mike R]

The peripheral canal that was proposed is not the same one that came about circa 1980. This one is much smaller. The recommendations for the canal were published in the Delta Vision papers and another Calfed document. These all came out in the last year. The fish people working on this looked at four scenarios:
1) Keep the status quo (all water through pumps).
2) Zero water exports.
3) All water exported through Peripheral Canal
4) Water exported through both systems so that they could select when and where to draw water.

They basically found that #1 isn't working out that well (see Delta Smelt, Chinook salmon, longfin smelt), #2 would be great for fish but will NEVER happen (as much as we ALL would like it), and #3 has its own challenges. This left #4 which allows the greatest flexibility with regards to pumping. It is essentially the lesser of two evils.

By no means is it the BEST for fish but something has to change to ensure the long term viability of the Delta. We have to be realistic about what we as fish-people want to try to get. Will we ever see a cessation of Delta exports? Not likely. Can we see an alteration of export practices, coupled with better water use practices and habitat restoration, greatly improve the Delta ecosystem? Definitely, that is a goal that we should be working towards. As with any related to fish and water, some sort of compromise has to be the solution.

See ya,
Mike

[David Lee]

I'm pretty suprised that the 'pro-bass-guys' haven't jumped on this yet .

The canal , as I understand it , will suck more water from the NORTH Delta and Sacramento River above what is considered to be the Delta proper - that will create saltwater intrusion way ABOVE where it currently is - Salinity in , say .... Franks Tract will be equal to what is in the S.F. Bay .

And that means that all of those Largemouth , along w/ all the $$$$ spent on them (a fair chunk o' change , right ?) ain't gonna be there anymore . LMB are NOT designed to thrive in a place like the big Sac around Freeport .

Considering the money at stake w/ the pro bass scene ..... the canal isn't going to make the masses happy . Flyfishers bitch and rant with the best of them , but the tourney bass folks out-spend us on a huge level , and money talks . I wonder what the powers-that-be at W.O.N. , or BassMasters have to say about this project ?

Welcome to California - where rational thought comes to die .

David

[Darian]

Mike R,.... The point I was trying to make wasn't so much about the canal....As you correctly stated, that's old news. The point I was making is that a large, environmental group formally endorsed the canal (albeit conditional). If you'll go back and read Tristan's earlier comments in this thread, I believe you'll see what he was pointing out to us.... :)

[Tracy Chimenti]

Canal capacity is gonna be a big fight. I don't trust any of these jerks.

[Mike R]

Darian,
I agree 100% with you. My response was more aimed at the Per. Canal and the almost knee-jerk reaction of people to be against it without considering the alternatives

As far as the Klamath and Delta being linked, I think it is important to be skeptical; not so much for the Delta but for the Klamath side of the coin, for many of the reasons Tristan pointed out quite well.

See ya,
Mike

[Frank Alessio]

Any place you see a Nature Conservancy sign is Land you will never ever Hunt on again....

[Mike R]

TNC has provided access to and protected one of the most special rivers in the West. They also bought up a large amount of acreage in the Sac Valley for protection and riparian restoration. Much of that land is slowly being turned over for recreational oppurtunities, including hunting and fishing.

Mike

[Frank Alessio]

Mike,

They have bought up a lot of rice fields (at least their signs are on them) what are their
plans for the rice lands?

[Mike R]

I'd imagine it's to convert the rice fields back to natural marsh. That is good for ducks. As far as I know, TNC buys private land. As the lawful landowner, doesn't that give them the right to do what they want with the land? Also, is there a difference between closing their land to hunting and a rice farmer not allowing hunting on the same property? FWIW, I am a hunter too and all for more land open to the public. But, on the other hand it is also important to preserve/restore the limited natural habitat we have left. I'm okay with a private organization purchasing properties to achieve this.

Mike