Email
PrintThe case against the peripheral tunnel
We have warned in this space repeatedly about the dangers of rushing an ill-conceived peripheral tunnel around the Delta, but no one has made the case against the tunnel more clearly than Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sport Fishing Protection Alliance, who wrote the following column in the Sept. 5 issue of Capitol Weekly.
“It isn’t people versus fish; there is enough water for both if efficiently and equitably used. The Delta cannot survive the waste of subsidized water to grow subsidized crops in the desert. The fast-track path to a peripheral tunnel that Gov. Jerry Brown seeks, will have to navigate the ballot box, Congress, the Legislature and the courts. It will require suspension of our environmental review statutes, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act and the California Water Code, as well as property rights, due process and, frankly, common sense. Facts and science will continue to throw up roadblocks to a tunnel.
“California’s water crisis exists because the state has over-promised, wasted and inequitably distributed scarce water resources. Any effective solution requires bringing rights to water into balance with available supplies, maximizing use of water to the greatest good for all and ensuring that the public’s rights are protected. Here’s why the project will fail:
“It is predicated on paper water. That is, the legal right to divert water exceeds by four times, on average, the unimpaired flow into the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The state has promised more water than it had in the wettest year on record. California’s water wars are rooted in efforts by those entitled only to surplus water to jump ahead in line of those with more senior water rights.
“The estuary needs more water if it is to survive. There isn’t enough water, never has been enough water, and with global warming further reducing existing supplies, there will not be enough water to meet promised deliveries and guard estuary health.
“The finances don’t work. The tunnel’s capital and operation costs are now estimated at $17 billion, not including debt costs, for a scheme that is likely to export less water.
“It serves few. Two-thirds of Delta exports serve corporate agriculture on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley, which accounts for less than 0.5 percent of California’s economy and population. Only a third goes to urban areas that make up half the state’s population and economy.
“The water will be too expensive for farmers. And urban ratepayers will revolt if asked to subsidize corporate farmers.
“There are cheaper ways to protect water supply. While one of the justifications for the tunnel is the threat of an interrupted water supply in the case of an earthquake or levee breach, raising and strengthening levees to withstand a quake can be accomplished for $2 billion to $4 billion.
“There is water for both people and fish if it is efficiently and equitably used. But the estuary cannot survive the waste of subsidized water to grow subsidized crops in the desert.”
We could not agree more.
Please note: Your full name will be published with your comment.
This well-written, concise letter holds more information than meets the eye. We continue to hear about the needs of the farmers in the Central Valley, but many Californians may not be aware that these parcels belong to large agribusiness who are subsidized by the Federal govt. to grow crops in a desert. Drive down I-5 and notice the water-intensive crops (fruit and nut trees, cotton?, etc.) and a large canal that loses a significant portion of precious water to evaporation.
Water is the planet's most precious resource, and one can imagine that water wars will again arise in this state if more is given to moneyed interests than can support the populace and protect the environment. Marc Reisner's "Cadillac Desert" teaches us that only 5% of the American west has natural water available without diversion, and agriculture uses approximately 75% of that. Thanks for the article!
BDCP focuses on both water supply reliability and Delta restoration as mandated by the Legislature, unlike 30 years ago. Critics of the BDCP continue to mislead the public by linking BCDP to a 30-year-old proposal.
”Paper water" referred to in the Sept. 5 article fails to recognize that California's water resources are repeatedly recycled. Water use permits are issued by the State for specific times and places of use. It is normal for the same water to be used multiple times as it travels through the system. Trying to make the case that somehow the State has irresponsibly issued permits for water that doesn't exist is at best misleading. As an example, a portion of the water delivered to farms in the Sacramento Valley will be returned to the Sacramento River and reused by others further downstream. In some instances, this water is reused up to nine times.
Critics also claim that water flowing through the Delta is just exported to corporate farmers and that two-thirds of the water delivered accounts for just 0.5 percent of California's economy. A low percentage means that food costs are low which translates into consumers spending less of their disposable income on food. American families spend just 6.2% of their disposable income on food and non-alcoholic beverages compared to 10.2% for families in 28 other high-income countries. If the percentages were the same we would have to spend an additional $3,820 per year on average for food. Who thinks THAT is a good idea?
Claims about subsidized water are also misleading. The only subsidy related to water deliveries is the 1935 congressional decision waive the interest charges on CVP construction costs that must be repaid by farmers. That decision was based on the realization of the abundance of food that would be produced by that water. There is no subsidy in the current BDCP proposals. Water users will pay all costs associated with the water they receive.
Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition
I see and understand Mike's point about food costs, and it is a good one - we all want cheap food costs. However, I believe the problem with corporate farming is the opportunity it presents for looting by skimming off the cash stream. We don't need to challenge anybody's character here because it happens everywhere around the world with most every business enterprise. That is how economic growth occurs and we must accept the consequences. The real question is, "Is it sustainable, or will it collapse in on itself as inflation consumes the taxpayer?"
In addition, we have heard a lot about the crop transformations that big agribusiness can achieve (e.g., switching to nuts and pomegranates that largely get exported for bigger profits). While growing higher valued crops for greater profit is not a crime, it does present society with a serious problem as good, inexpensive food dwindles in supply and becomes more expensive. There are no guarantees that CVP- and SWP-water-supplied farmers won't switch to higher valued crops (e.g., permanent crops) if their water supply becomes more reliable. In fact, it is inevitable because, after all, farmers are in it for the money. All they need is guaranteed water. Who then, I ask, will grow the necessary and healty food that has a lower profit margin?
Also, we should acknowledge it is likely the current proposal for ecosystem restoration coupled to the BDCP will be significantly subsidized. It will likely be the taxpayer who will foot the bill for the ecosystem restoration efforts that are needed to mitigate the damage already caused by the existing SWP and CVP diversions which may even be exasperated by increased diversions under the new BDCP. These costs are enormous.