Peripheral Canal

[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