More
News
The
Delta: A National Treasure in trouble
by Bill Jennings, Executive Director, CSPA
February 14, 2009 --
Waters from north of Redding to south of Fresno gather in the Delta
Estuary.
More than 750 species of plants and animals, 130 of them
fish species, inhabit this 600-mile labyrinth of islands, sloughs, canals
and channels that comprise once was once one of the richest and most
diverse estuarine ecosystems in the world.
It is a major nursery
for fish and invertebrates; a highway for migrating salmon and a way stop
for millions upon millions of migratory birds.
It encompasses
almost 500,000 acres of some of the most productive farmland on the planet
and offers recreational opportunity for millions of citizens. In a given
year, 23% of all registered boats in Ca. can be found in the Delta. It
also supports a significant subsistence fishing community.
Unfortunately, the biological tapestry of the estuary is hemorrhaging.
Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, the Delta is legally defined as severely
polluted by numerous pollutants and incapable of supporting identified
beneficial uses. It is classified as a Toxic Hot Spot under state
law. Aquatic life toxicity is endemic.
The Delta is
identified as critical habitat for a lengthening list of threatened and
endangered species. Salmon and steelhead populations are down 90%
from historic levels. Resident open-water species (Delta and longfin
smelt, threadfin and American shad, striped bass, splittail and sturgeon)
are at or near historical lows. Much of their native food supply –
phytoplankton and zooplankton - has been reduced by 90-99%. The mass and
diversity of bottom dwelling organisms has plummeted. Hundreds of
non-native invasive species have become established, further destabilizing
the estuary.
We’re not talking about a few species in decline but
rather a catastrophic collapse of an entire ecosystem.
This
collapse has been described as death by a thousand cuts. Chief among
these are excessive water diversions, toxic pollutants and invasive
species. However, excessive diversions exacerbate the effects of
pollutants and invasive species.
The Pumps
Massive quantities of water are exported south by the most powerful
pumping network in the world: pumps that can reverse the tide and cause
the San Joaquin River to flow upstream; pumps that can suck a volume of
water including fish and their food supply equal to the capacity of the
south Delta every four days. In some years, the pumps export almost
three-fourths of the water that would have flowed to the sea.
As
fisheries and water quality collapse, exports have increased from an
annual average of 1 million acre feet (MAF) in the 50s, to 1.7 MAF in the
60s, to 3.6 MAF in the 70s, to 5 MAF in the 80s and have surged to more
than 6 MAF between 2000 and 2007.
And they want to pump more.
And the scheme to pump more is called a peripheral canal. This
neanderthalic concept would be the death of the estuary. It would:
a. Transfer pumping impacts to the last viable salmonid
river in the Valley.
b. Eliminate “critical habitat” for species in
Susiun Bay.
c. Increase the concentration, bioaccumulation,
biomagnification of pollutants and add to temperature and dissolved oxygen
problems.
d. Increase salt-water intrusion thereby reducing yields on
hundreds-of-thousands of acres of productive farmland.
e. Send numerous
species into oblivion, and
f. Catapult 10s of thousands of fishing,
recreational and agricultural employees into a permanent economic
depression.
The Peripheral Canal
The governor and hydraulic brotherhood have launched a full-court PR
campaign to approve and fund a peripheral canal. Unfortunately, they
haven’t provided the details – sizing, location, how it would be operated
or what mitigation or safeguards might be necessary.
Or, who would pay for it.
While exporters have suggested they would pay for the actual
conveyance, the larger mitigation costs would apparently be borne by the
taxpayer.
The Economics
Peripheral canal proponents tout a report prepared by the Public Policy
Institute of California and UC Davis scientists in support the canal.
The report predicted that under the present system (or what is known as a
“dual conveyance),” there was only a 10-30% likelihood of a viable
population of fall-run salmon and only a 5-30% chance of survival of Delta
smelt. Whereas, with a peripheral canal, likely survival increased to
20-50% for salmon and 10-40% for Delta smelt. However, likely survival was
projected to dramatically increase with no exports (30-60% smelt and
40-80% salmon).
What canal proponents ignore is that the PPIC
report was based upon a canal that would export 40% less water than
currently exported. They also ignore the fact that the report, using the
Calvin model and further refined by a professor of economics at University
of Pacific, estimated that the economic consequences to California from
ending exports would be less than from continuing exports.
That
seems incredible. But, the facts are that the economic costs to
farms and cities from eliminating exports are less than from building a
peripheral canal ($250,000,000 - $850,000,000 vs. $400,000,000 -
$750,000,000 per year).
The Virtual River
How can this be? Eliminating exports would compel us to tap into
California’s virtual river. As DWR’s California Water Plan and reports
from Pacific Institute and others show, we have a 7 MAF virtual river of
conservation and efficiency, recycling and conjunctive use. That’s
more water than we export.
Even beyond this, South Coast
desalination is increasingly competitive with the cost of new storage
facilities. And its time to face up to the absurdity of growing cotton in
the desert or on impaired soils that when irrigated leach toxic pollutants
to our waterways.
The questions; Before we proceed
For decades, water agencies and canal proponents have refused to answer
three fundamental questions.
How much water does the estuary require to maintain
ecosystem integrity?
How much surplus water is available for export?
What are the economic and environmental consequences of
various reduced export scenarios?
These questions must be answered before we proceed further down a Rube
Goldberg path and destroy a National Treasure.