CSPA
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
“Conserving California’s Fisheries"

Home

More News

Your 501(c)(3) tax deductible cash donations are desperately needed if the fight for our fisheries is to continue. Read how you can donate!
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Enter your Email address to sign up 
for our Weekly Newsletter
For Email Marketing you can trust
(Continued)...
 

More News

horizontal rule

CSPA SealThe 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.