|
Levee trouble
revives Peripheral Canal talk Global
warming, billions of dollars and a North-South feud heat the
pot By Mike
Taugher CONTRA COSTA
TIMES
The growing danger of a Delta levee failure is reviving the
highly controversial Peripheral Canal as a way to protect a drinking
water source for more than 22 million Californians.
After a rare summer flood dramatically illustrated how a break in
one of the region's fragile levees can imperil water supplies
throughout the state, a pair of leading scientists say the canal
plan, which was bitterly opposed in Contra Costa two decades ago,
ought to be considered.
Few policymakers are ready to propose building a peripheral canal
-- the catchall term for any structure that takes river water
upstream of the Delta and carries it to water users in a way that
bypasses the Delta.
It was, after all, one of the most controversial engineering
proposals in state history.
"The politics of the Peripheral Canal were so poisonous it was
taken off the table," said Jeffrey Mount, a UC Davis geologist and
an authority on California rivers and levees. "I've never heard a
rational explanation for why."
The problem with relying on the Delta for drinking water is that
many of the region's sunken islands sit 10 to 20 feet below the
surrounding water. And many of the levees holding back occasionally
brackish water were built in the 19th century. Already old and
fragile, the earthen berms are now considered even weaker than
previously thought, Mount said.
When those levees fail, as they did at Jones Tract this summer,
the breach can gulp so much water that seawater can wash into
drinking water supplies, a very difficult and expensive problem to
fix.
Circumventing the Delta and the levees with a canal could protect
drinking water for 22 million Californians, from the South Bay to
Southern California.
Mount and his UC Davis colleague, fisheries biologist Peter
Moyle, said they are not necessarily proposing that a canal be
built, only that a modified version of it be considered.
"It's the obvious solution to the problem," said Moyle. "My
concern is that if you get this major collapse of Delta levees, it
would cost billions of dollars to fix. And, realizing (the fix)
would be on a temporary basis, suddenly the economics of the
Peripheral Canal look really good."
It is unclear how much it would cost to build a conduit around
the Delta, but the last official estimate before voters defeated the
Peripheral Canal in 1982 was $2.5 billion, according to historian
Norris Hundley's book, "The Great Thirst."
By comparison, raising the levees to modern safety standards
would cost about $1 billion, according to a 1999 study that almost
certainly underestimates what the cost would be today.
But that fix would simply enlarge the levees. It would do nothing
to shore them up against major earthquakes and little to address the
higher sea levels and bigger floods that are expected in a changing
climate, said Mount. Fortifying the levees against earthquakes would
require replacing substandard Gold Rush-era foundations with
engineered structures, an extremely expensive endeavor.
A peripheral canal has other potential benefits, Moyle said. For
example, the West Coast's largest estuary could be managed less as a
drinking water source and more like a natural estuary with more
dynamic flows and changing salt levels that could serve as habitat
for native species. It is unclear how well it could be restored,
since the Delta has been so dramatically altered over the years.
And any plan to build a canal faces huge political obstacles and
re-ignites passions that have been largely dormant, especially in
Contra Costa County, where 500,000 people get all their tap water
from the Delta.
"It's come up, it's come up, it's come up. But as far as them
whipping us on it, I don't see it," said Joseph Campbell, a member
of the anti-Peripheral Canal steering committee in 1982 and now
president of the Contra Costa Water District. "I hate it."
Rare flood offers warning
June 3 was a reminder of why the levees matter and a close brush
with a serious statewide emergency. Under the pressure of an
unusually high tide that day, a levee in the southern Delta that was
believed to be in good shape crumbled. So much water gushed so fast
onto the Jones Tract, eventually flooding 11,000 acres of farmland
and displacing migrant workers, that salt water from the Bay began
to creep near Delta pumps.
Operators were forced to crank down the massive pumps near Tracy
for six days to prevent salt from fouling the water supply. Cut off
from their Delta source of water, San Joaquin Valley farmers and
Southern California cities had to rely instead on groundwater and
Southern California reservoirs -- backup sources inadequate to meet
sustained demand.
The summer flood was made more complicated because flooding on
one island raises the risk to other nearby levees and islands. The
day after the Jones Tract levee broke, for instance, crews rushed to
shore up a second levee protecting tens of thousands of acres of
additional farmland. Leaks and seeps sprouted on adjacent
islands.
One of the gravest fears of water operators -- a cascade of levee
failures -- appeared possible.
"As the flooding of Jones Tract demonstrated, there are many
known and unknown risks that can reduce our ability to import water
from the Delta," Tom Clark, general manager of the Kern County Water
Agency, wrote recently to the editor of his local paper.
Clark, who is retiring, endorsed a plan for a scaled-down
peripheral canal to augment existing plumbing. That plan has been
shelved since 2000, but is due to be reconsidered by state water
officials as early as 2007.
Clark did not respond to a request for comment.
Water-grab fears
In Northern California, there is concern that any new
infrastructure with the potential to move more water south will
eventually do just that, and in Southern California there is
reluctance to stoke those fears.
The largest urban water agency in the state, for example, has
studiously backed away from any discussion of a new canal.
"You're going to have to drag my agency kicking and screaming,
because we're so afraid of what it's going to do to North-South
relations," said Tim Quinn, vice president of the Metropolitan Water
District of Southern California.
Anglers worry about the negative effect on fisheries, while
environmentalists are concerned that Delta ecosystems would be
further damaged.
There are other concerns, as well.
Without the South's reliance on the Delta for drinking water,
statewide support could dwindle for maintaining the levees that
protect a half-million Contra Costa residents' water supply, which
would probably continue to come from the south Delta.
Delta farms, which predate the projects that move water to
Southern California, would face the same problem.
Bad odds for Delta
Over the last year, Mount's research has shown the pressure on
levees growing as the islands continue to sink and the sea level
rises. Without corrective action, the pressure will continue to
build.
Moreover, a major earthquake might lead to abrupt, multiple levee
failures that are likely to overwhelm any emergency response
efforts.
Mount calculated a two-in-three chance that sometime in the next
50 years Delta levees will fail and lead to significant
flooding.
His work has not been formally reviewed by other scientists, but
it is generating interest in scientific and water policy circles and
comes at a time when California is increasing, or at least
cementing, its reliance on the Delta.
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, for example, is in the process of
renewing more than 100 25-year contracts for nearly 2 trillion
gallons a year from the Delta system. The proposed contracts are
very similar to the contracts they will replace and do little or
nothing to reduce the state's reliance on the Delta.
At the same time, the California Department of Water Resources is
expected in the next several months to move ahead with a plan to
ramp up its pumping capacity by 27 percent to increase the
reliability of water supplies.
Canal repackaged
The original Peripheral Canal was envisioned as part of the State
Water Project, the massive plumbing system that includes a dam in
Oroville, pumps at Tracy and an aqueduct that carries water 444
miles to Riverside County.
As originally designed, the canal would have diverted water from
the Sacramento River just south of the state capital into a new
channel large enough to carry the entire river in the dry fall
months.
The water would have traveled in an arc around the east side of
the Delta, arriving at pumping stations at Tracy cleaner than water
that travels through the Delta. At various points along the way,
water would be released from the canal into rivers feeding the Delta
to address environmental concerns.
After the state Legislature and then-Gov. Jerry Brown approved
the canal in 1980, incensed opponents put a referendum on the
ballot.
Former Contra Costa County Supervisor Sunne McPeak was a
co-chairwoman for the opposition group. McPeak, now a Cabinet
secretary in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration, did not
respond to requests to her office for an interview.
Delta farmers, environmentalists and Northern California
residents strongly opposed the canal, and the referendum killed the
proposal in 1982.
But the idea did not go away.
In the early '90s, conditions in the Delta were reaching a
crisis. Fisheries were collapsing because of overpumping. Federal
regulators were threatening to curtail water deliveries south of the
Delta unless something was done. A broad-based effort called CalFed
was begun to fix the Delta.
One proposed solution -- with the new, less threatening name
"isolated conveyance facility" -- would be to build a pipe smaller
than the old proposed canal.
The final CalFed decision in 2000 gave the pipe strong
consideration. But the "conveyance" was ultimately "rejected as
infeasible due to social and technical considerations, based in
large part due to the contentiousness" it would foster.
But CalFed added that a new canal proposal could not be ruled out
entirely, and might be reconsidered as early as 2007. In the
meantime, CalFed would maintain and upgrade levees, improve water
quality and restore ecosystems and increase Delta pumping capacity.
If that doesn't improve fisheries, water quality and water supply
reliability, the "conveyance" will come back into play.
"After that first stage, we're going to have to evaluate: ... Is
the through-Delta system the right way to go?" said Patrick Wright,
who leads CalFed as executive director of the California Bay-Delta
Authority.
Wright added a cautionary note.
"I think people need some time to digest this material (from
Mount) before they start leaping to conclusions about plumbing."
Canal alternatives
Dealing with the Delta's instability does not necessarily mean
that a new water delivery system must be built. Maybe there's a
third way.
"I think it's sad that the only thing people want to talk about
is a peripheral canal," said John Cain, a restoration ecologist at
the Natural Heritage Institute. "We don't think about Delta
fragility or the seismicity of the Delta because of the P-word."
Cain suggested that new levees could be built to divide islands
up like pie slices. That way, if there is a flood, only a portion of
the land would be flooded.
Another idea is to start rebuilding the islands to higher
elevations by planting tules or using rice straw bales.
Unfortunately, filling the islands with dirt or rock will not work,
because that material is heavy enough to crush the peat and cause
further sinking.
"I don't see the Peripheral Canal as a solution to this problem,"
Cain added. "I see the Peripheral Canal being a walking-away from
this problem."
Still, Wright, Cain, the UC Davis scientists and others say it
would be a good idea to begin coming up with a plan for dealing with
the levees now, instead of waiting for the calamity that Mount has
forecast.
"We think it makes sense to start this dialogue now, rather than
waiting for the Delta to deteriorate," said Jonas Minton, a former
deputy director at the California Department of Water Resources and
now a water analyst for the Planning and Conservation League.
"We think it's the sort of issue where Californians should not
stick their heads in the peat," he said.
|