CONTRA COSTA COUNTY REPORT ON PERIPHERAL CANAL CALLED "UTTER NONSENSE"

Pasadena Sub Rosa ^ | April 28, 2009 | David O. Powell

[WayneLusvardi]

Re: Mark Traugher, "Peripheral Canal No Drought Lifeline, Contra Costa Water District Finds, Contra Costa Times, April 24, 2009 -

Synopsis: A $10 billion plan to build a canal around the Sacramento Delta would not deliver significantly more water to cities and farms if it were in place this year, new data shows. It would divert water around the Delta for delivery to farms and cities. But numbers developed by a state-run planning group seeking to build the canal show it would not deliver more water in dry years, the Contra Costa Water District stated this week. Link:

http://www.contracostatimes.com/search/ci_12221166?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com

RESPONSE: David O. Powell - Pasadena

David Powell, B.S. Civil Engineering, Cal-Tech; former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, formerly California Dept. of Water Resources Chief Engineer of San Diego office; water and hydro-electric engineer with Bechtel Corporation; Assistant Chief Engineer Alameda County Water District; Vice-President and Chief of Planning for Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Glendale, California; presently retired.

My reaction to the above-cited article is "what utter nonsense!"

First, the article is by a reporter who apparently doesn't fully understand what he is talking about. For example. the article refers to

"... numbers developed by a state-run planning group seeking (emphasis added) to build the canal..." yet the thrust of the article is opposition to the plan. A later paragraph refers to "...Gary Bobker, program manager of The Bay Institute, an environmental group, and a member of the conservation plan's steering committee." Mr. Bobker is quoted as stating "If you build a very expensive facility and don't improve water supply much, does that create more incentive for water agencies to weaken existing environmental and water quality standards?"

The article appears in a Contra Costa County newspaper, and liberally quotes representatives of Contra Costa Water District. Please bear in mind that Contra Costa Water District's water supply is dependent on (water) diversions directly from the Delta.

The article states "according to water users' estimates, new rules to protect the threatened fish cost 300,000 acre-feet of water this year..." Later it says " in dry years the increase is small to nonexistent..." Three hundred thousand acre-feet per year during droughts is insignificant?!?!?!

The article makes reference to an $8.5 billion cost for the current plan. I would like to see the cost estimate leading to this figure. I do not remember the estimated cost of the Peripheral Canal when it was proposed for construction a quarter century or so ago. But I would be very surprised if that figure, adjusted for inflation, would come anywhere near $8.5 billion.

Let me add a few closing remarks outlining my views.

I would have to agree that the fact that there is not very much new water available for capture during drought periods is sort of a no-brainer. Although 300,000 acre feet a year is not insignificant. The real function of a Peripheral Canal during periods of drought is to enable the transfer southerly of supplemental water originating northerly of the Delta, whether that water is from existing storage, new storage in the Sacramento Valley, water purchased from farmers or diversions from North Coast streams.

The article indicates that larger supplies originating north of the Delta are available during wet years. The problem is that with current restrictions on pumping from the Delta imposed on the State Water Project and the Federal Central Valley Project, the ability to transfer water during wet periods is severely impaired.

Various statements in the article suggest that a major function of the proposed plan will be for the purpose of "... existing environmental and water quality standards...[and to]... conserve endangered species." I would suspect that a Peripheral Canal for the purposes of getting water from the north side of the Delta to the south side of the Delta (without aggravating environmental conditions tot a state worse than would exist under natural drought conditions) would cost far less than $8.5 billion.

I think that the remarks about the capacity inadequacy and inability to refill existing storage downstream from the Delta are well taken.

Sub Rosa Note: As best as we have been able to find online the original cost of the Peripheral Canal, not including offsite levees, was $1.5 billion in 1982. Recalculated in today's dollars at a 4% per year monetary inflation rate, would be about $4.3 billion.

[SunkenCiv]

?

[Carry_Okie]

The Peripheral Canal is primarily a real estate subsidy for those who wish to develop Southern California and the lower Central Valley into bigger cesspools than they already are.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks CO.