While his most recent plan to ship water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is dressed up with years of reports, and while Brown’s peripheral canal has changed to a pair of peripheral tunnels, one thing remains the same from his first water project in 1982: His plan won’t add water to the state’s overall supply.
That’s a problem, because that is the real issue. There simply isn’t enough water in the Delta to fulfill demand and leave enough water to sustain some semblance of an ecosystem.
Part of the problem can be traced to when the California Aqueduct and the Delta-Mendota Canal — which ship Delta water to the Central Valley and Southern California — were built.
Contracts to south-of-the-Delta users were handed out with the idea that water would be shipped from the far northern reaches of the state to supplement the water sucked out of the Delta. But those northern rivers were proclaimed off-limits to water exports (and are, not surprisingly, the healthiest rivers in the state).
That left less water to hand out than the contracts called for, one of the reasons that even in a wet year like 2011, those who receive water from the Delta-Mendota Canal get less than 100 percent of their entitlements.
That puts a hefty strain on south valley farmers who have planted orchards or can’t water crops.
Still, the basic math hasn’t swayed some people, who say the only issue is that the pumps near Tracy feeding the aqueducts suck up an endangered fish.
If that were true, moving the intakes away from the fish — as the governor’s proposal envisions — would be a workable solution.
But the presence of those fish, and the environmental protection they enjoy, is one of the few things preventing the Delta from being sucked dry and San Joaquin County agriculture from suffering a body blow.
If the pipeline is built, the governor’s administration says protections would ensure that the north-of-the-Delta pumps wouldn’t run all the time and that standards for water flow in the Delta would be maintained. According to the Department of Water Resources, that would ensure the San Joaquin County portion of the Delta doesn’t dry up.
But it’s easy to imagine, in a drought “emergency” like the one in 2007 to 2009, that political heavy hitters who rely on pumped water would put pressure on the governor to lift those restrictions. In that case, it’s the folks and farmers in the Delta who would be left high and dry.
The only analysis that makes sense is that the peripheral tunnel idea would result in less water for the Delta and more water for users in the Central Valley and SoCal.
You don’t even have to follow the water to figure that out — all you have to do is follow the money.
The biggest backers of this plan are the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and irrigation districts along the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, all of whom take water pumped south out of the Delta.
The only reason for moving the intakes away from where the endangered fish live is so that more water can someday be pumped.
If that’s not the case, there seems little reason to build the pipes in the first place.
The problem isn’t an endangered fish. It’s basic supply and demand.
The governor’s pipeline plan won’t fix that fatal flaw.
Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition
Instead of performing what would end up looking like "heart bypass surgery" from an aerial view.
Why don't we fix the canal we already have?
In other words take the main artery and unclog it.
Instead of sending liquid parallelograms up and down the coast.
Th rational behind yer line of thankin is exactly why th Colorado River no longer empties inta th Gulf of California an why Mono Lake is a virtual wasteland.
Ya can only take so much water out before ya start ta do unrepairable damage ta other systems.
Th people have a distrust of contract law that governs how much water movin through th Delta could be diverted, along with a distrust of an elected government to arbitrarily change operatin procedures precisely because history has clearly shown in th past such contracts have not been held up an th members of th elected government have arbitrarily changed operatin procedures solely fer political purposes an th monitary rewards it has personally brought em.
I understand from what someone, on here (on other articles about the peripheral canal/pipes) who goes by "TomB_______" that farmers in Mendota are not getting water. Is that true?
If so, I truly feel for them because having travelled south on many occasions have witnessed the signs saying, "Congress created dustbowl", and seeing the existing canals with water traversing those very same thirsty and dusty fields.
Having witnessed that firsthand, myself, as you might also have done. Why would we promote more canals?
Might I asked a question? Have you put any thought into fixing the problem with the existing canal?
Install a switching station that can divert water when a delta smelt is detected.
Lets say, five delta smelt coagulated in the canal and are a thousand meters from the pumping station.
One way to mitigate this impending sardine genocide would be to divide the acres per second into many multiple flows before the fish are sucked into the pumps.
By using the concept also known as divide and conquer, the water from five (or fewer) of "flows" could be diverted safely to a collection pond - using sensors.
If the ratio of smelt channels verses non-smelt channels is consideres properly, you could effectively maintain acres of water flow, while reducing the solution of smelt water to cubic feet per second.
Thus mitigating the smelt solluble water solution that is sold to farmers in dire need.
Fish used as ferterlizer, if required, can then be produced and sold at nurseries. And we do not have to build another canal through several CA counties. It's an idea that will help all CA farmers.
Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition
Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition
Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition
Are you referring to the lawsuit against the state of CA, forcing them to dredge the Delta?
You do not think the risk will always be there - if you were to add a second path it would in fact, double that risk.
If you read my suggestion it will mitigate the risk to the delta smelt without creating additional impacts in multiple locations. This will create the trust.
Imagine if they cannot be trusted with one location, how can they make it work again. We need to learn to use what we have before we start the problem again elsewhere.
We simply have no choice. We really need to discuss technological solutions not political solutions. Do you think those in control of the the water issues really understand the issues?
I don't.
When Mr.Wade says, "...distrust of contract law that governs how much water moving through the Delta could be diverted and a distrust of an elected government to arbitrarily change operating procedures for the proposed tunnels leaves no room for reasonable discussion", he's telling the truth. But it's a truth based on a long history of his organizations biggest members doing everything they can to grab as much water as they want, with no regard for the long-term impact on our watershed.
Humans are clever creatures. We're smart enough to build things that make life more convenient. Some of us are willing to push a selfish agenda for short-term profit. Some of us are not.
Mr. Wade, people who actually care about California's future are not locking their doors. They are venturing outside to say Kill the Tunnels!
7 Questions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-n1LK1QVqc&hd=1
A Costly Mistake http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUxJBYHlxKM&feature=relmfu&hd=1
Stop and Think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnV6MCvXK38&feature=relmfu&hd=1
3012: The Space Salmon Incident http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64dqhgRM1qI&hd=1
The tragedy is that most of any water that flows through a peripheral tunnel will benefit a small group of agribusiness interests on the West side of the Central Valley. No matter how they spin it, those interests are farming on lan
Anwar, good or ultimately bad? In that th dammin of th Nile changed an entire eco-system that cause a lot of problems, in my opinion more than it solved, I can't help thankin it was really a bad idea.
Yangtze an Yalow river projects now nearin completion in China. good or ultimately bad? Fer centuries th world, particularly Japan, has experienced massive dust storms headin frum th West an even at a magnitude large enough ta reach our West coast. Ever wonder why th sun tarns red, aside frum refraction in th atmosphere caused by water vapor in th air?
Well it's mainly caused by dust. Ya can see more of it when thairs a dust storm kickin up debris an when a big volcano pops its cork.
We have been concarned about global warmin caused by man an climate change whair th temperature drops causin massive amounts of snow. Now that th Gobi desert is now virtually expandin an th water frum th Yangtze an Yalow rivers have largely been dammed up fer massive hydroelectric benefits, one might expect weather patterns ta change.
Funny how few people thank about eco systems an thair negative gobal effects until after they created th problem.
To celebrate, I'm having a plate of Texas toast.
Look, I want jobs an a recovery of th economy too. What completely stupid person wouldn't?
But this ain't th road ta recovery, it's th road ta disaster.
Thair will be elements in place ta keep these pumps frum runnin all th time?
Ya know, strangely enough, that's basically th same thang said when th people were all told th replacement water would come from up north. Now, how did that promise work out?
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Thair is no guarantee an no hint of intention based on history that says yer gonna have enough water fer everyone an still maintain a vital ecosystem.
An given a lot of our food supply comes frum, or rather through, that ecosystem it's probably not a good idea ta negatively impact it.
Ya know, thair was a good reason th ole man upstairs designed it all this way, what makes mankind thank they can do better or even have th right ta change it?
We are already irrigatin what use ta be a desert, how much more can this watershed irrigate before we destroy it all?
No on Moonbeam's idea.