AB 500 (Huber) just misses...

[Bob Loblaw]

..... I take it that you're in favor of progress at any expense, including accountability and integrity. Well, I'm not. Unfortunately, there's been a lot of this "progress" happening the past couple of decades and it stinks of greed, laziness for a quick buck, etc.

Let me use an analogy to explain my point of view. California is like a seemingly healthy 50 year old man. Nice tan, could lose a little weight, but couldn't we all, has a few bad habits but takes care of himself OK.

Unfortunately looks are deceptive. The guy has a life threatening clogged artery and it could kill him at any moment. In the grand scheme of his body, its just a miniscule blood vessel no bigger than a pencil but its his critical weak link and unless he gets a bypass, he will die.

California's weak link is the Delta, its our clogged artery. Its an incredibly inefficient and incredibly vulnerable yet absolutely critical part of our water conveyance system and our overall life support system as a state. It needs a bypass if we are to save the patient.

The arguments we have been having these last 40 years about who gets how much and what should they do with it, is akin to the cardiac surgeon and the insurance company fighting over the man's diet or his fitness regimen...we won't pay for the surgery until he signs up for a gym and quits eating twinkies. Those are both laudable objectives, and he should exercise and eat better, but they do the man no good if he dies during the debate.

Every day we do not have an alternative conveyance around the delta we risk the very future of California as a viable place to live and work. That might sound alarmist, but its true. You can't live where there's no water, just like you can't live with a blocked aerotic artery.

We should try to save the delta and all ecosystems to the best of our ability, but not if it puts our very existence at risk. there are limits. So I'm not necessarily for progress regardless of the cost, morso against incessant delay knowing the very grave risks.

[Darian]

Nice analogy. I do understand your points but am not ready to arrive at the same conclusions. Seems to me that the immediacy evident in your post is really crisis management at work. IMO, the delta is not critical for having "a viable place to live and work" for now. But, do agree that without some alternative solution being implemented soon, the delta will pay the price for human intervention, once again. The delta is still a natural water way that has been altered in so many ways that it hardly resembles what it was originally. Inefficient, vulnerable...., maybe. I just feel that the delta is too important to lose without exploring/implementing other solutions, first.

Implementation of the PC would alter things further. Giving up on this body of land/water and diverting from a point higher up in the river system would deprive the delta of incoming water needed to maintain it in its current condition let alone improve conditions. It would, also, allow more human meddling with predictable results.

Even in view of all that, the delta is an ecosystem worthy of saving from the further ravages of the needs of agri-business/development. By way of thinking about the future, I recently read about the connection between water storage/conveyance in China and their economic activities that stated China currently has 26,000 dams/reservoirs and more are being built/proposed every day. Not sure I wish that outcome for CA. Yet, that would be the logical outcome of implementation of the PC. Increased capacity = increased demand on water conveyance systems.

The problem with the discussion you refer to as taking place over the last 40 years is that it has been focused (as is your position) on a single, very expensive solution. Again, IMO, that's just not good enough when other potential solutions exist but are not being taken seriously or are actively opposed.

[Bob Loblaw]

Tracy posted this article on another thread;

http://exiledonline.com/water-wars-b...oy-california/

I'm not sure I agree with all of the conclusions the author comes to or with the ad hominems he uses to make his point, but factually the article is 100% accurate.

The Sacramento River Delta is the scariest place in the country. Its a highly vulnerable, overly elaborate and crumbling water conveyance system that 22 million people rely on every day, every time they take a drink of water. Without it 22 million people will need somewhere else to live in a hurry. Just imagine that scenario for a second? 22 million homeless people on the move, driving east and north in search of shelter and water. We are talking a disaster of biblical proportions unlike anything we have ever seen in our lifetimes. Thats the gravity of the threat we face, yet we are stuck in a fight over whose farms are more valuable...Westlands farmers or Delta farmers.

Personally, I don't think the government should be paying for the construction/repair of levees in the delta any more than they should be subsidizing water for valley farmers. If they are for profit farms, they should stand on their own. The government's primary responsibility is to provide and protect critical infrastructure that people need to exist and which individuals or private entities are unable or unwilling to construct on their own. There can be no better example of such infrastructure than our water system and our government is behaving in a hugely irresponsible manner by not pulling its finger out and protecting the people from the risk of having this critical civic asset rendered useless by a natural disaster.

In a perfect world all sides could get around a table and spend the next 40 years discussing in good faith a perfect solution that both preserves the Delta ecosystem and provides enough water for responsible water use by the people of California. We don't live in that world and we don't have 40 years.

California delta wars have traditionally had two definining characteristics, immovable objects and irresistible forces (read intransigent people) and the end result is usually deadlock and inertia. Earthquakes don't care about deadlock in Sacramento.

Even if the central valley was a vast desert without a single farm, we ought to have a peripheral canal to protect drinking water supplies. Its insanity that our most precious life sustaining resouce is proteced by nothing more than 100 year old piles of dirt that crack and collapse every few years and we scramble to plug them.

We need to build the peripheral conveyance/canal/pipe call it what you will, not for Westlands but for the 22 million people who drink from that canal every day. We can deal with Westland's avarice after the thing is built, but holding the canal hostage, holding a gun to the heads of 22 million people until the factory farmers do the right thing is bordering on inhuman.

If we could go back in time and redesign our water system based upon what we know today we would never build Hetch Hetchy and we would never have built a system reliant upon the delta, but we did and we have to live with that reality. 38 million people live here and need water. We can only conserve so much and even if we are all responsible stewards will will still need dams and pipes and canals that compromise wild and scenic places.

If I was governor for a day, I'd declare a state of emergency, eminent domain the land, float the bonds, sign the contracts and start construction tomorrow. Once the thing is built and operational, we can fight about whose water rights are most important and how to balance environmental concerns with agricultural and economic demands. The real debate is not so much about the need for a pipe, rather who controls the valve and who decides how much water flows through it. Environmentalists and the pro Delta side of the argument don't think they can hold their own in those "valve control" discussions, so they'd rather have no peripheral canal period and damn the consequences. I find that sort of thinking mind boggling when you take it to its logical conclusion and understand the consequences.

The other alternative is to leave California and reduce demand. I'll be on the first plane out after all the Environmental Defense Fund members have left.

[Darian]

So, the solution you imagine amounts to "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" Consequences be damned. would that sum up your position

I'm not sure the article you refer to is not entirely factual. I don't believe that 22 million people are all served by water from the Delta. Consider that the Los Aangeles/San Diego area receive water from the Colorado River and many smaller communities in SoCal get their water from wells just as Sacramento and surrounding communities do. IMO, the article overstates the urgency of the situation.

I do agree that a natural disaster could occur. The question is what/when Of course, Mts Lassen and/or Shasta could erupt, sea levels will rise (eventually) and an earthquake could happen. Care to try to predict when any of these events will occur, if at all Any one of these events could disrupt the water supply. So, why wait for DeSal as an alternate solution Why not re-cycle increased volumes of water to reduce demand IMO, both are better solutions than a PC.

Ultimately, construction of a PC may become the only real solution but I don't believe the time for that has arrived, yet. What we need is to export more of our population to other states and countries....

I think we can agree that you and I are not going to come to a common understanding on this subject.... I do enjoy the debate tho.

[Tracy Chimenti]

First, you can build any facitily, even a dual conveyance system, and tell everyone it's going to be used in a certain responsible manner.

Then you change the policies and suddenly a whole lot more water is being pumped.

In recent months, a knowledgable delta farmer by the last name of Cortapassi has been running full-page adds in the Bee explaining what he sees as a case of clever, politically leveraged water theft, as well as the altering of the estuary's ecology to the detriment of fish and farms. He wants more dredging and returning the spoils to the tops of the levees. The current power-base and related bureaucrats will not allow this, as it runs counter to the scare tactic of earthquakes, which helps drive the water export facility plan.

I know... without a doubt... they will export more and more water, calling for "balance" every 10-years or so... salinity in the estuary will rise to the point the delta farms will be threatened... and numerous costly barriers, sill, dams, locks, etc., will be purchased with taxpayer funds to fight this problem. The exporters will not pay for it. This after spending $20-billion dollars "to save the Delta." It will be like a dog chasing his tail... but he will spend more and more money... and will never catch it.

In the end, we will have to stop fishing for salmon, stripers, and steelhead. There will be some fish there, but not enough for the fishermen to enjoy.

[Darian]

Recently read an article in one of the San Joaquin Valley papers reporting that existing canals are deteriorating and need to be repaired or replaced soon. Another high cost infrastructure investment. Yet, the peripheral canal (PC) will probably be constructed before updating the existing canals or investing in cleaning up pollution from ag-waste water....

If I understand the proposed route for the PC is a diversion point below Sacramento around the Delta to the pumps at Tracy. That would appear to give the capability to increase the amount of water diverted by taking water from the Delta as well as direct from the river. Now, some very big pumping facilities have just been constructed near Freeport for the Sacramento area and EBMUD. In addition, to connecting to water infrastructure for Sacto, these pumps connect to a canal system that delivers water to EBMUD facilities in the south Delta. If water from the river is diverted for the PC in addition to all that already diverted, how long will it be before the Sacramento River looks like the San Joaquin River And, we'll still have to pay for the updating of existing canals/pumps.

Bob mentioned that the conversation on this situation has gone on for the last 40 years. I recall a statewide election during the early 80's where voters rejected the PC recognizing it as an attempt to rip off water from NorCal. During the years that have passed since that election, agri-business has apparently focused entirely on the PC and offered no other solution to meet their needs.

On the other hand, several local governments (NorCa/SoCal) have explored DeSal as one alternative to meet their needs. Since somewhere in the early 90's we had the South delta Improvement Project (CalFed ) that developed the Bay/Delta Conservation Plan. Also, we have the body of law passed during the last 3 years that proposed the latest iteration of the PC, additional reservoirs and the bond issue election. Now, I'm not passing on whether these actions/projects were successful or not. Just noting that there's been a lot more than conversation going on.

Being a realist, I believe that agri-business interests will ultimately have their way and the PC will be built at our expense regardless of whether the vote on the proposed bond issue passes or not because, they're too big and too important to allow them to fail (sound familiar ).

Anyway, enough of this wandering rant....

[OceanSunfish]

Thanks Darian for taking the time to write out key points that needed to be mentioned here again.

[Bob Loblaw]

So, the solution you imagine amounts to "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" Consequences be damned. would that sum up your position

the solution does require full speed ahead. The USGS predicts the likelihood of a large earthquake in the Bay Area in the next 30 years at north of 70%. It could happen tomorrow and if it does, and if it damages those old delta levees, we will have a cataclysmic event. Its not about damn the consequences if we act, rather what are the conseqqueces if we fail to act?

California is a man made environment, at least the parts of it where people live in large numbers. It is only habitable because we built infrastructure to support life...i.e. water conveyance systems.

When the Spanish first built settlements in San Francisco it was a dry barren mostly sandy place. THe only water was a small seasonal creek in the Presidio. We all know LA's water history, it was a desert, as was San Diego, the San Fernando Valley, Long Beach, etc etc. all incabable of supporting anything but minimal numbers of people.

If we don't support and protect our life support system, our water conveyance system, we need to find somewhere else for 22 million people to live and we need to prepare for the complete economic and societal collapse of the California we know.

There are consequences for the environment. You can't put 38 million people in a place that is mostly uninhabitable and move water around to sustain them all without consequences. Those consequences have not always been good for fisheries, that is well documented. However, what are the consequences of not protecting this conveyance system? what are the consequences when that earthquake hits? we lose the delta and wreck havoc on 22 million people.

Desal as I explained is not a viable option, yet. It requires an awful lot of energy to produce fresh wate from salt and one of the byproducts are millions of gallons of toxic brine which will surely pollute and destoy any ecosystem that is anywhere near a Desal facility. Marin County killed a desal plant proposal for that very reason.

I would live to see laws banning water hungry crops, banning sprinklers for gardens and lawns, banning the use of potable water for washing cars. I would love to see more grey water permits issued (ever try to get one of those for your home??? I have and its not easy) I would love to see a lot more purple pipe, bio swales, rainwater collection and conservation...BUT all of those things, if done tomorrow statewide would still not negate the need for a peripheral conveyance.


I have to laugh a little when delta farmers complain about others changing the delta ecosystem and calling for more dredging and levee construction....thats just a little ironic don't you think? The delta is a 100% manmade and managed environment. Made and managed by those farmers for profit. Most of the sports fish there are introduces from elsewhere. Stripers have done more harm to the delta ecosystem than just about any other introduced species.

At some point, nature will reclaim the delta either through an earthquake, a massive winter runoff or sea level rise. Perhaps a combo of all three. We need to be prepared to that eventuality and that means moving our water conveyance system out of the delta altogether.

Tracy is right when you build the conveyance, you need to police it. You need to ensure that the cotton farmers in Kern County don't open the valves and keep them open. Vigilance will be necessary. But the alternative, i.e. not to build the conveyance, will lead to a disaster of biblical proportions and untold human suffering...and I'm not exaggerating. Once salt water gets into that aqueduct its game over for 22 million people who use it for drinking water.

Where I live in the East Bay our water has been getting salty late in the summer for the past decade as a result of increased salinity in the delta. CCWD has had to increase Los Vaqueros Reservoir to add capacity and pump and store more winter runoff. We are a small water district and are lucky to have that option, and the ability to plan ahead. Water users further south don't have that luxury....and if there's salt in the aqueduct year round, CCWD users are screwed too.

[Darian]

Bob,.... I'm sure you recognize that USGS has been predicting earthquake probabilities for decades without a great deal of success. IMO, nice to know but not a solid basis for governing decisions.

Since you're so entirely focused on the PC as a solution for the states water problems, even though you, yourself, point out less expensive/potential solutions, I can't see much point in following this discussion further.... It's worth repeating once again that I can't see the justification for giving up on the delta before exploring any/all alternative solutions before constructing the PC. Certainly not the mention of striped Bass as a cause of Delta decline. That's really grabbing at straws.

Interesting that this discussion comes to a head at the time when the current governor is preparing to push for construction of the PC to augment our current water diversion/conveyance system (originally built by his father while governor in the 50's).... Building on a legacy Maybe....

[Bob Loblaw]

The USGS can't predict when an earthquake will occur merely windows of time when they are likely to occur given their historical patterns. We have thousands, nay millions of years of earthquake data in our rocks and we know with a high degree of certainty that the Bay Area is overdue a BIG ONE.

You ignore that data at your peril.

there's a lot of low hanging fruit out there and a lot of water conservation measures that can and ought to be taken. If the average water consumer in San Francisco can survive on 57 gallons a day there's no reason anyone in Sacramento should consume 288 gallons, but they do according to DWR statistics. We can cut domestic consumption by 75% by enacting smart laws, but that still leaves many millions dependent on fresh water that flows through the delta.

I think the best solution is widespread mandatory conservation measures, coupled with a small peripheral canal that goes around the delta and is safe from natural disaster. We're unlikley to get a small canal because the farmers want water too and they have clout so the next best solution is to make sure that the canal is adequately policed and the farmers don't have their hand on the valve.

Leaving things the way they are and allowing the delta levees to collapse either on their own, through a quake, sea level rise or winter runoff, is not an option any of us wants to see happen...but thats exactly what will happen if we keep dithering.

This is a classic example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. To many people are looking for/demanding a perfect solution to our water needs instead of taking a good solution.

I hope I'm wrong and we never have another quake and the sea never rises and those old levees last forever...but I'm more of a pragmatist than that.

Its our government's job to protect the people from disasters that they knoiw are coming and which they have the power to prevent. So far they haven't done their job and we are at great risk.