Peripheral Canal good for Delta Fish?

[nightgoat]

I happened to see this press release today:

http://www.ppic.org/main/pressrelease.asp?p=859

Summarized, they claim that short of stopping all water exports from the Delta system a peripheral canal drawing water from the Freeport/Clarksburg area with no pumping from the Delta is the best option for the fish. Obviously there is more detail in the report (I've only read the summary so far).

Here is a link to the report:

http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=810

I did a short background check on the PPIC and they appear to be a legit non-partisan organization. Peter Moyle and William Bennett (UC Davis fisheries biologists) are two of the six authors of the report.

This report is making me re-think my opposition to the canal (built as described in the report).

Why do I feel suspicious? Anyone know something I don't about the PPIC?

[Darian]

Haven't read the report yet but PPIC is a very good source of info and has a good reputation for integrity....

[Dabalone]

How could carrying water "around" the Delta be beneficial? The system depends on flushing actions, wouldn't make sense to me.

[Darian]

OK,.... I read the summarized version of the report and it seems that it's attempting to compare proposals made by the Governor's Blue Ribbon Task Force on the Delta and draw conclusions from their information to Make specific recommendations. There are 5 of them.

"1. Move away from levees as the primary means of managing Delta land and water.....

2. Transition from through-Delta pumping to other export strategies.....

3. Build a peripheral canal to satisfy both economic and environmental objectives....

4. Actively plan and prepare for a changing Delta ecosystem....

5. Develop a new framework for governance and regulation of the Delta."

IMHO, some of these recommendations make a lot of sense and others are in recognition of reality. The reality is that the Delta is seen as the primary source of relatively clean water for agri-business and municipalities from, roughly, the bay area southward. Thus, a peripheral canal may be the only viable (surely not the best) solution. Even the authors acknowledge that the best solution is to stop withdrawing water from the Delta. However, they recognize that restoration of the Delta is not realistic any longer.

The authors cite several reasons for concluding that the some form of water conveyance system is necessary. Among them is the potential for damage by earthquakes. I'm certainly no expert but I believe that there have been few, if any, instances of damage to the Delta proper from earthquakes since I have lived in NorCal (196. Also, I find it difficult to understand why that's an issue if the recommended plan is to allow some of the Delta islands to re-flood. So, IMHO, this one sounds like a semi-red herring.

This report and its recommendations all seem to be following along the same line of thought. That the primary source of water is the Delta. So the only conclusion has to be a water conveyance system of some sort. The authors also recognized that moving to a canal would require a transition period of dual conveyance facilities over a lengthy period of time. My concern about that implementation would be the temptation to leave the dual conveyance system in place once it's functional. An easy choice for cash starved state budgets.

In any case, there's no consideration of potentially new sources of water in this report and that says a lot about how narrow the focus has been. What about desalinization for bay area folks How about restructuring prices for water to reduce the subsidized cost paid by agri-business So much for supply and demand.

Does this mean we should now support a peripheral canal In a limited sense, my support would be based on the same reality. Others will have to make their own choices. Frankly, the Delta is a dynamic place and will change regardless of what we choose to do due to a number of uncontrollable circumstances. Maybe it means we just have to bite the bullet and accept the best of the worst.... I sure don't like it, tho. :\ :\ :\

[Darian]

One thing I forgot.... There is mention in the report of the recovery of "....desirable fish....". I'm hoping that doesn't mean what I think it means. Of course, if does mean what I think it means, Stripers and Shad will be left to fend for themselves.

In the history section of the report, there is mention of the historical value of the Salmon fishery (commercial/recreational) as a reason to support the recommendations. There's no mention of the value of Stripers/Shad in the report. So, if the report makes the point that the Delta is a dynamic place, why would the authors only make reference to Salmon Maybe the full report does include them but I doubt it.

[epzamora]

here's an interesting read about the peripheral canal:

http://troutunderground.com/2008/07/...ater-problems/

eric
fresno, ca.

[Darian]

Good article.... But MOS. All of the writers for the media refer to water being used for food production on the San Joaquin Valley. When I drive down I-5 in the summer/fall, by far the largest crop (in both directions) is cotton. Anybody here eat cotton How about a little more initiative on the part of farmers Even the City of Los Angeles and Orange County are already recycling treated water into underground acquifers. Agri-business apparently can't recycle their used water as treatment to remove all of the crap they pollute it with would be too costly for them. So, after they make it unusable, they dump it back into waterways for the rest of us to deal with and demand more, clean water.

I gotta get off this. I read the letters to the editor in the SF Chronicle today and found the old platitudes about choosing humans over fish again. Good thing I'm going fishing or I'd really be bummed.....

[sacrivertrout]

One thing I forgot.... There is mention in the report of the recovery of "....desirable fish....". I'm hoping that doesn't mean what I think it means. Of course, if does mean what I think it means, Stripers and Shad will be left to fend for themselves.

Does it matter? You make the delta hospitable for salmon and steelhead, especially fish like coho, which are very sensitive, and the shad and stripers will have no problems. It is a whole ecosystem, and steelhead and coho are much more susceptible to a impure ecosystem than strippers and shad.

[Tracy Chimenti]

I read the story in the Bee the other day and the long range goal is to have a "dual-conveyance" system-- one through the canal, the other through the Delta. This way they (say) can have more "flexibility" in managing the exports. Of couse the PC is going to be large enough to accomodate flood flows-- so much for those flushing flows that enhance downstream migration. And the way I look at it, unless you destroy the old conveyance system, they're gonna use both of them at the same time when the time comes.

Remember the "flood control" dam that Doolittle finally aggreed to?-- he wanted to make it "expandable"-- so he eventually could turn into a water storage facility.

How about when East Bay MUD wanted to pick up "clean" water at Nimbus-- they wanted to make the canal large enough to accomodate "flood flows". It's all double-talk to me and if they get a crack at building the infrastructure, they'll just change the rules when the thirst gets bad enough in So Cal and Central Valley. Like gasoline, when it's scarce enough, they'll sign off on off-shore drilling and ANWAR.

The scientists operate on science and principle-- the politicians pushing this agenda operate on smoke and mirrors.

[JerryInLodi]

Will there be any profit for the engineering and construction firm building the peripheral canal.

I think so.

Now guess who funded the PPIC report. Good hearted, non-biased, Stephen Bechtel of the Bechtel Corporation.

The Bechtel Corporation is one of the largest engineering and construction corporations in the world. And they're lurking, waiting to bid!

Read the full details at www.calsport.org

Another case of follow the money!!!!