More News

Send a letter to the Governor

Facts and Myths: The Truth About California’s Water, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and the Proposed Peripheral Canal

August 8, 2009 -- The 1982 attempt to build a peripheral canal in California was decisively defeated as California voters overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to divert water from the Sacramento River around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) to Central and Southern California.  The current and renewed attempt to construct a peripheral canal and thereby control up to two-thirds of California’s water, is not, however, being brought before the public and is being initiated irrespective of public opinion and input. 
 
Through a 2006 Executive Order, Governor Schwarzenegger formed the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force (Task Force) to study the Delta issues and develop a plan to address the needs of the competing interests and recommend potential solutions for incorporating other proposals/agendas such as those of the Nature Conservancy, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, and the Department of Water Resources among others, ostensibly resolving some of the Delta’s most pressing challenges.  In 2007, the Task Force’s “Delta Vision” was completed and in 2008 the Task Force was dissolved following the submission of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan.  With funding from the Packard Foundation, members of the Task Force created the Delta Vision Foundation (DVF) to ensure implementation of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan). 
 
The DVF is currently working to push legislation through this summer (2009) which, if enacted, will guarantee implementation of modified versions of many of its recommendations through regulation and statute.  The 17 bills, which were initiated by a variety of legislators and focused on diverse elements of the Strategic Plan, have now been combined into five to six inclusive bills and are being fast-tracked to ensure passage this session.  Few people know about the pending legislation and the final bill language has not been made available for public scrutiny.  This, along cancellation of upcoming legislative hearing dates, raises concerns that this legislation is being pushed through in a “rush, rush – hush, hush” manner and will be brought to the floor of the legislature without adequate – or any - time for public input and participation in this process and will not adequately address the full gravity of concerns.  This is especially disturbing as this issue affects all Californians. 
 
As the Strategic Plan is not only vague and non-specific leaving room for unrestrained interpretation, but it is also deficient in a number of areas and is far from fulfilling the levels of accuracy and reliability needed for an undertaking of such great consequence and magnitude.  Further deliberation and research is needed to define and develop real solutions which are neither flawed, nor lacking in the substance needed to be effective and credible.  Some of the questionable aspects and inconsistencies of the Strategic Plan and related issues are addressed below. 
 
Myth:  A peripheral canal is in the best interest of all citizens of California and will protect public access to water.
 
Fact:   If the plans for a peripheral canal go through, water will be diverted to water districts in Central and Southern California through a 500 – 700 foot-wide (with approx. 1,300 feet additional right-of-way), 48 mile-long, unlined ditch comparable in size to the Panama Canal or a hundred-lane freeway.  As two-thirds (66%) of California’s water runs through the Delta, Northern California may lose control of much of their water.  Not only will the $10 - $40 billion canal be financed by the ratepayers (“recipients”), but they will then have to pay additionally to purchase the water they receive, as well as help finance the public bond needed for ongoing maintenance and operation of the canal.  If the current governance plans go through, control of this water will be in the hands of between one and five people appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger, which will essentially deny the public control of public domain water, and likely result in the privatization of California’s water.
 
Myth:  Building a peripheral canal will increase the amount of water in California and the “co-equal goals” of restoration of the Delta’s ecosystems and water supply can be achieved.
 
Fact:   California will always have the same amount of water irrespective of how the water is transported.  A peripheral canal will not increase water supplies, but, by siphoning water from the Sacramento
River above the Delta, it will decrease the amount of fresh water entering the Delta thus increasing salinity levels and escalating the environmental damage and further compromising the Delta’s fragile ecosystems.  The Strategic Plan does not adequately address the fundamental issues of the quality or quantity of water in the Delta.  While runoff from agriculture is routinely checked, sewage and other effluent from major cities, along with stormwater runoff from city landscapes and streets goes largely unrestrained.  For instance, large and possibly detrimental amounts of ammonia are regularly dumped from Sacramento’s wastewater treatment plant just above the Delta.
 
Myth:  Flooding parts of the Delta and turning it into salt-water wetlands will resolve the Delta’s ecological crisis by “restoring the ecosystem” and saving the endangered fish species.
 
Fact:   The construction of a peripheral canal and subsequent diversion of much of the Sacramento River water will cause increased intrusion of salt water into the fresh water areas and reduce access of fresh water for freshwater fish.  This will significantly increase salinity in the Delta, which may adversely impact the Delta smelt populations.  Diverting a majority of the Sacramento River water just below Sacramento will also adversely impact salmon species, which rely on the Sacramento and American Rivers to successfully spawn and increase their populations.
 
Myth:  Central and Southern California have a “right” to Northern California’s water.
 
Fact:   California’s Watershed Protection Act gives to a watershed of origin, or an area immediately adjacent to the watershed that can be conveniently supplied with water from that watershed, a priority as against both the State Water Project and the Central Valley Project to all of the water reasonably required to adequately supply the needs (municipal, agricultural and environmental) of the watershed, area, or inhabitants or property owners therein.  This guarantees that Northern Californians have first rights to their water above and beyond needs elsewhere in the state.
 
Myth:  California is in a severe drought.
 
Fact:   Much of California’s precipitation for 2009 has been in the high 70% – 80% range and is not as grim as was originally predicted.  While conservative water use is in order, California water availability should not be severely impacted due to the rainfall totals.  Management of California’s water during the past few years, however, has created a situation of reduced water access due to practices of severely draining major water reservoirs, leaving little, if any, reserves for drier years.
 
Myth:  Development of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan has been a transparent process and all the major impacted parties have had input in creating the proposed decisions of how to manage the diverse and varied Delta interests.
 
Fact:   Current Delta communities have been left out of the decision-making process in planning for the Delta’s future.  While properties for many Delta residents are under threat of eminent domain and these Delta residents, who have the most to lose personally with the proposals of the Delta Vision Strategic Plan, have had limited opportunity for input, many peripheral canal stakeholders, including junior water rights holders such as Westlands Water District, have been given significant opportunity to participate in the planning process.
 
For more information contact www.restorethedelta.org or www.organicsacramento.org .