CSPA |
| 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! |
 Enter your Email address to sign up for our Weekly Newsletter  For Email Marketing you can trust |
More News
New Peripheral Canal Analysis Reveals Project to be Dysfunctional Scheme
by Bill Jennings, Executive Director, CSPA
July 26, 2009 -- The Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) recently analyzed the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) studies that have been conducted to date and reached the same conclusions as CSPA's analysis revealed: A Peripheral Canal is a dysfunctional unworkable scheme that will exacerbate existing conditions.
It should be remembered that the PPIC report that is used to justify a Peripheral Canal concluded that a dual-conveyance system would be a disaster for fisheries (20-50% chance of survival of salmon as a species and 10-40% chance that Delta smelt would survive). It should also be remembered that the cost estimates contained in the PPIC report (as modified by Dr. Jeff Michaels of UOP) revealed that the costs to California from eliminating all Delta exports was essentially the same as constructing a Peripheral Canal.
The CCWD analysis is summarized as follows:
1. A Peripheral Canal alone would deliver less water than can be delivered today (4.6 MAF/year) after reductions required by the Wanger decision and federal biological opinions. Dual conveyance could deliver as much as 6 MAF/year, if fishery recommendations for increased flows are ignored.
2. The Sacramento River carries less than 15,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) 46% of the time (size of the proposed Peripheral Canal). Minimum instream flow needed to protect fisheries is 9,000-15,000 cfs (plus a percentage of the remainder). Again, higher bypass flows recommended by DG have not yet been studied.
3. Because of limitations on how much water can be drawn off the Sacramento River, 50 to 75% of exports must still come from the south Delta pumping plants.
4. A large Peripheral Canal would be largely unused: it would be empty 12% of the time, transport less than 2,000 cfs 18% of the time, transport 2,000-4,500 cfs 20% of the time, transport 9,000-14,000 15% of the time and convey more than 14,000 CVS only 4% of the time. In other words, it would be empty three times as often as it was at full capacity.
5. A 5,000 cfs pipeline would provide virtually the same amount of water as a 15,000 cfs canal. Again, this fails to consider necessary increased flows for fish.
6. Actual costs of a Peripheral Canal are close to 10-12 billion dollars, which does not include mitigation for project impacts or restoration efforts.
7. A Peripheral Canal would be longer than the Panama Canal and wider than the Sacramento River (500 feet wide). It would have the same seismic problems as existing levees (one of the supposed justifications for a canal), create major barriers to terrestrial species migration and have enormous seepage and drainage problems.
8. The analysis found that water supply improves with a small facility and that benefits diminish as size increases. The mid-point of construction for a 15,000 cfs Peripheral Canal would be 2023 and the mid-point for a 5,000 cfs canal would be 2018.
9. Environmental problems have yet to be addressed. A Peripheral Canal would worsen the stagnant polluted conditions in the Delta.
10. The BDCP studies show “variable salinity” (one of the selling points of a Peripheral Canal) would be difficult to attain.
11. The key water conflict remains. Freshwater flows are needed to protect fisheries: including, salmon flows for migration, spring flows for estuarine species and fall salinity for estuarine species. Meeting the needs of fisheries will require reduced water supplies.
12. New fish screens at Clifton Court Forebay (as required by the CalFed Record of Decision in 2000) would reduce loss of Delta smelt. Flow control gates (2-Gates) would limit entrainment of delta smelt (note: Two-Gates is a highly controversial experiment).
13. BDCP implementation remains 10 to 15 years away. Fisheries status remains poor. Other stressors (pollution, invasive species, etc.) are not being addressed. Lawsuits will continue to increase. Water supplies will remain unreliable.