More News

Engineers Refute Ivory Tower Theories of Dr. Doom: Levees can be protected for less than the cost of a peripheral canal

by Bill Jennings, Executive Director, CSPA

August 10, 2009 -- University of California at Davis geologist Jeff Mount proclaims himself Dr. Doom as he rushes about the state predicting that earthquakes and global warming will destroy Delta levees and a 10-20 billion dollar Panama Canal around the Delta is the only alternative that will spare southern California from disaster.   Dr. Mount's doomsday scenarios have received wide media coverage and been shamelessly hawked by peripheral canal proponents as justification for the massive conveyance scheme they believe will facilitate increased exports of northern California water to irrigate impaired lands in the desert.

Now, three engineering firms, each with over 25 years of on-the-ground experience in working with Delta levees, have jointly offered a rebuttal to “the fast-tracked academic review” of Jeff Mount and other UCD peripheral canal cheerleaders.

KSN Inc., MBK Engineers and DCC Engineering Co., Inc., have written a letter to Senator Lois Wolk refuting claims that the Delta is “doomed” if the canal isn't constructed.  Without hyperbole, the letter rationally discusses the issue, acknowledges existing levee problems and observes that Delta levees can be upgraded to withstand likely seismic events and rising sea levels for far less cost than a peripheral canal.

Media fixation on disaster predictions has obscured the cautions of CSPA and others who have pointed out that:

1.     Levees can be strengthened to no-fail seismic standards,

2.     Levees can be raised to withstand likely sea level rise over the next 50 years,

3.     If sea levels rise as much as predicted by the Pacific Institute, much of the Bay Area and Central Valley will be under water and everyone will be promoting a barrier across the Golden Gate,

4.     A peripheral canal or tunnel and associated pumping facilities will be subject to the same seismic and sea level rise threats as levees,

5.     Levee failures can be quickly repaired and islands reclaimed with minimal loss of water supply reliability,

6.     Abandonment of levees will inevitably lead to massive habitat loss,

7.     The PPIC report vastly exaggerates both the cost of fortifying levees and the consequences of levee failure, and

8.     Strengthening levees is the most sensible and cost effective solution. 

CSPA believes an expert panel from around the country should be convened to peer-review Dr. Mount's doomsday predictions: experts with no vested financial or ideological stake in the results.  Recognized specialists in seismology, hydrology, climate change, fisheries and levee construction and maintenance should be charged to review, compare and evaluate a range of reasonable alternatives.  Who is right; Dr. Doom or the engineers?  Are the disaster scenarios overstated?  What would several billion dollars directed toward strengthening levees and installing state-of-the-art fish screens achieve in fisheries protection and water supply security versus tens of billions of dollars spent on a 50-mile White Elephant?  Which alternative would provide the most habitat for the buck?  Which would best ensure the survival of Delta agriculture?

These questions are being lost in the Mad Hatter rush to a peripheral canal.  They were ignored in the UC Davis/PPIC report paid for by canal proponents.  They're not being addressed in the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan process.  They've been disregarded by the Schwarzenegger Administration and over looked in the slew of pending legislative proposals.

But future generations, taxpayers, Delta farmers and communities and California's riverine and estuarine ecosystems deserve serious and dispassionate answers to these questions.  California needs to pause, take a deep breath and weigh available options before recklessly plunging down an expensive and irreversible path to a peripheral canal. 

Engineer's letter