Corps Strikes Again....

[Darian]

The SacBee reported, today, that the Corps of Engineers has issued a national policy requiring removal of all vegetation from the outside wall of all levees and anything amounting to two inches or more in height from inside levee walls....

In a stunning reversal of prior policy, the Corp says that failure to remove the vegetation will result in withholding of federal funds for flood protection. The Bee reported that the state is attempting to have the Corps exempt California from this national requirement. The major concern is that this policy will result in loss of riparian habitat for animals and will contribute to further decline in threatened fish species. All of the current vegetative growth on levees in California was previously approved by the Corps.

It would seem that this rush to force compliance is unnecessary as a group study is in process to complete a national plan, shortly. If carried out, the damage will be done even if the final policy supports vegetative cover as it will take years to recover the habitat loss.

The full article can be read at: www.sacbee.com/capolitics/story/292327.html

Think maybe there isn't a move afoot to make sure water distributors/users get what they want by eliminating any competing interests (natural or otherwise)

[David Lee]

Hence the reason we need a peripheral canal so we can do away with a lot of aging and useless levees....

Perhaps it's time to look into population control a little more closely

Take a good , long , HARD look at what happened to the Colorado river/upper gulf of California - then .... go suck the big Sac dry .

David

[Mike McKenzie]

" Hence the reason we need a peripheral canal so we can do away with a lot of aging and useless levees...."

Yes, Let's build the canal so we can suck the north dry and turn it into another Owens Basin and at the same time we can eliminate our "remaining" anadromous fisheries much to the delight of the Bush Administration and his Aquaculture "friends" such as Castle & Cook, etc..

How about supporting legislation to get the State taxpayers of the hook and make the local "gummints" be responsible for their insane decisions that allow development in flood plains. Such legislation would cure the problem..
We need the Corps of Engineers around here about as much as a Plague...

Mike

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... I'm quite sure the rationale for building the proposed peripheral canal has nothing to do with reducing the need for aging, useless levees. I'm not sure anyone who's living near one of those levees thinks they're useless (farmers included). Let's face it, without levee systems, life in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valleys would be very wet or very dry on a seasonal basis. With housing developments being approved by local governments behind levees in the delta there will never again be a time when levees are not a necessity (maybe not the best choice, tho).

[Darian]

Tristan,.... Lest you get the idea that I trusted what was said in that editorial, you didn't get the message in my follow up post.

Now that I have your undivided attention, nothing you've stated supports your position that existing levees are useless. Further, your supporting info seems to deny the reality of new, existing housing developments behind levees in the delta west of Stockton. Also, that farming is a legitimate use of water in the growing of agricultural products. (That's not to say that the current levee system couldn't be improved/modified....) All of these activities occur side by side in the delta today.

Your position appears to support returning water flows thru the delta to a time long past. IMHO, not very realistic (or acceptable??).... We're talking apples and oranges.

If granting that population and smart growth are politically charged issues and therefore not doable. You can't, then, justify a peripheral canal as the solution while ignoring the same political realities involved there (well maybe YOU can). In other words, you can't have it both ways.

As you pointed out, the peripheral canal was voted down by the public in an open referendum some time ago (during the Deukmajian Admin. I believe). It certainly isn't realistic to think that the public will see it any different this time around.

[Darian]

I dunno.... One perpheral canal looks just like the other to me. The current proposal will do exactly the same as was proposed in the original. Which is to reduce the amount of fresh water flowing into the delta....

At any rate, you and I are no going to agree on this. So lets just wait and see how things progress.

[matt johnson]

Hi all,

I hope I don't come across as too much of a dumb-ass, but what is so bad about a peripheral canal?

The current pumping system entrains larval fish and the present management of the delta as a freshwater instead of brackish ecosystem appears to have facillitated the spread of exotic organisims.

Peter Moyle supports a "modified" peripheral canal, since it will return more brackish and therefore more favorable conditions for desireable fish species to the west delta.

Water conveyance is not going to stop and will likely increase. The present system is not working. We need a better system.

Beyond the obviously bad, and in my opinion unlikely, scenerio of resulting in no Sacramento River water reaching the delta, what's so bad about a peripheral canal? Sincerely, Matt Johnson.

[Darian]

Hi Matt,.... Legit questions. The answers I'm going to try to provide are from my perspective and overly simplified/summarized as I don't believe there's enough space to address all of the issues here.

The existing "pipeline" works exactly as it was intended to do. It was built for the purpose of removing freshwater from the delta and transporting it elsewhere. It does exactly that. A negative side affect of that is the entraining of organisms taken from the delta. The pumps either kiils these organisms or sends them elsewhere. The current system is working but may not work in the manner you or I want it to. So, from that point, we do need a better system. But, is a perpheral canal the only alternative???

I admit that my perspective is a bit colored by my distrust of anything environmental proposed by politicians or their supporters. Especially the governator. If past experience is any indicator, Dr. Moyle will have little to say about what form this proposal ends up looking like.

While I respect Dr. Moyles opinions/thoughts, changing the water management style in the delta from fresh to brackish will have economic consequences for farmers and others who make their living there who are dependent on that fresh water. Managing the delta for fisheries, alone, is unrealistic. The development horse has already left the barn.

Several years ago, it was reported in the Sacramento Bee that East Bay MUD has a claim to water from the American River and could exercise their claim to take that water from Lake Natoma. A canal is already in place for that eventuality. If I recall correctly, thru negotiated settlement, EBMUD agreed to take their water downstream from the mouth of the American. So, depending on where the pumps for the peripheral canal would be located, it could impair that agreement and force EBMUD to take it's water from the American River.

You are correct about water conveyance continuing regardless of our wishes. Does that mean we should support another set of pumps/canals/levee system for that canal (peripheral)??? Since the pumps at Tracy and the current canal system will still be intact, what is to keep the powers that be from declaring that they need more water and pumping at both stations??? Does two wrongs make a right??? In the back of my mind I'm recalling what was done by the L.A. Dep't of Water & Power to Owens Lake and thinking that a lot of the same BS was used to assure the people of Owens Valley that buiding Tinemaha Reservoir, the Owens River, Lake Crowley would have no impact on their area. Result, a very large, dry lake bed and a bunch of towns that either dried up or are have limited futures/lowered propery values for their occupants.

There're many more negatives/positives than I've attempted to point out, here but whether a peripheral canal is good or not boils down to who you believe???? Politicians/stake holders or those who will have little to say about what it will cost, look like and how it will be built/managed???

[Mike Churchill]

I'm as suspicious of the results of political processes as anybody, but I don't think you guys have addressed perhaps the biggest reason to build the peripheral canal: when--not if, but when--a levee pops on one of the big below sea level islands in the delta, a whole lot of salty baywater will flow into the delta to flood that island.

As I understand it, depending on which island that happens to, and how much water is coming down the Sacramento at the time, all the folks who pull water out of the south side of the delta will be in a world of hurt due to an inability to draw freshwater out of the delta for some period of time.

Say what you want about the residents of LA and the farmers on the west side of the San Joaquin valley, but suddenly cutting them off from delta water will not be a positive development for the economy of California.

Given the lack of maintenance of many miles of levees and the ongoing loss of peat soil on the delta islands, the continued viability of the cross-delta water conveyance seems questionable to me.

Can any of you more informed guys educate me about this aspect of the peripheral canal debate?

Mike

[Darian]

Hmmmm,.... Lotsa seemingly conflicting stuff here.... I'm sure I'm not the person who's going to be able to educate you on this subject, but... Once again, I'm giving you my slanted perspective.

I think we mentioned a single aspect downstream water rights issue in the EBMUD settlement. Probably not expansive enough, tho.

Obviously, there are more entities who have water rights in the south delta that would be impacted by building of the proposed peripheral canal. These same entities would be negatively impacted by collapse of a levee as desribed. It seems to me that whether water distributors/users are unable to draw freshwater from their sources due to a levee collapse or from less freshwater entering the delta, due to construction of the proposed canal, the impact would be the same. (As an aside, it should be noted that many of the levees that might be involved in a collapse are privately owned and maintained.)

I don't believe that "cutting off" agri-business or water distributors/users is realistic, either. Even the federal court appears to have allowed a restart of pumping. IMHO, recent shutting down of the pumps at Tracy thru court order was more symbolic than anything else. but, let's take a realistic look at water dsitribution from the current system. 85% of delta freshwater in this system is used by agri-business in the Sacramento, San Joaquin Valleys and SoCal water disrtricts have other water sources available. So, they're not entirely cut off if the pumps are shut down.

Finally, I feel the need to re-iterate a point I made in the prior post. The existing canals/pumping system will remain in place even if the proposed peripheral canal is built. Can anyone assure me that "....cross-delta water conveyance...." will not continue anyway whether now or in the future All of us paid for this system once.

Please, ANYONE, convince me why we should make this additional investment in tax dollars to provide the expanded pumping capability while considering no other alternatives....