New canal would not help the 'ailing' Delta

My View: New canal would not help the 'ailing' Delta
The Sacramento Bee – 4/7/09

Commentary by Mark Wilson

Mark Wilson co-manages Wilson Farms and Vineyards in the Clarksburg District of the Delta. He served on the Stakeholders' Advisory Group to the Delta Vision Blue Ribbon Task Force and was appointed by the governor to the Delta Protection Commission in January 2008 as an agricultural production representative.

The recent Viewpoint by Jeffrey Knightlinger of the Metropolitan Water District and the Northern California Water Association's Donn Zea ("Canal would help ailing Delta to recover," March 20), purporting a consensus around a peripheral canal as a means to "help the Delta to recover," and former MWD executive Timothy Quinn's letter ("Delta left out of climate scenario," March 20) present a one-sided view of a multifaceted situation that affects Delta residents and the entire state.

From co-managing a family farming operation in the Delta that dates back to 1922, I am gravely concerned that the plans being made to benefit water exporters would negatively impact the people, economy, natural resources and ecology of the Delta.

George Orwell would grimace at the claim that a canal built through five tributary rivers to the Delta, thousands of acres of prime farmland, a national wildlife refuge, American Indian burial sites, migratory corridors and other sensitive resources, and that significantly reduces freshwater inflow into the Delta somehow helps the Delta. A canal does not create any new water and is first and foremost a new northern diversion point for those with contractual rights to Delta water.

The canal would secure better-quality water for out-of-watershed users and potentially avoid some of the endangered species problems plaguing the pumping of water from the south Delta. Yet this would be accomplished at the expense of the Delta watershed and long-standing beneficial uses.

While new intakes south of Sacramento would decrease intake of Delta smelt at the current pumps, the potential effects caused at the new diversion points are unknown. What other species may be affected by the new diversions? What effects will the resulting changes in water quality and hydrology have on existing natural and human communities in Northern California and the Delta?

The reference to "isolation of a recovering ecosystem from the movement of the water supply" as some kind of favor to the Delta is self-serving. A canal does nothing to address the underlying problems caused by the vast distance between most of our state's surface water supply and the bulk of water demand to the south.

Some may point to the benefits of the tens of thousands of acres of habitat "restoration" that is another element of the Bay Delta Conservation (peripheral canal) Plan. Creating new marshes on working farms and other landscapes is a disruptive and dangerous experiment, not good science.

Little is known, about the effectiveness of these activities to avoid, minimize or mitigate take of listed species like the coho salmon and Delta smelt, which is what a habitat conservation plan is supposed to do. And what about the destruction of existing habitats when new habitat is constructed? Pointing to restoration projects of little known benefit that will certainly harm existing ecosystems and economies is also a farce.

We need to address a host of problems, including rising sea levels, seismic risks, water pollution and invasive species, while protecting endangered species, improving water quality within the Delta, sustaining agricultural economies within and outside of the Delta, all while providing a sustainable water supply to a growing population. It is no small task, and has been called a "wicked" problem.

To address these challenges, we need an "all hands on deck" approach. We need a process that respects all interests and draws on the entire body of available knowledge.

As a participant in the various processes, I can attest that substantive in-Delta concerns have been treated primarily as an outreach issue. Surprisingly, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is not a collaborative process built on consensus as one might expect, given the massive support for watershed-based planning that emerged from the CalFED process.

Despite the well-known fact that the best way to protect endangered species would be to reduce water exports, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan's only real core component is, and always has been, the canal. Serious consideration of water use efficiency and conservation, alternative supplies such as desalination, wastewater re-use, rainwater collection, groundwater banking, conjunctive use and additional storage south of the Delta are all apparently being relegated to the EIR alternative analysis, where there is little chance they will become project elements.

Calling a canal a help to the Delta is illogical doublespeak and should be rejected, as it was in 1982. The Delta is more than the state's plumbing system. Though not in a purely natural state, it hosts an incredible variety of ecosystems as well as vibrant human communities. We all need to be part of the conversation about conservation of this unique place on earth while continuing to supply at least some of the water needed by our agricultural and urban neighbors to the south. We all must do more to conserve water, protect water quality and respect the myriad species that depend on the Delta for survival.

It is obvious that the biggest loser in the current plan will be the Delta itself. In the short term, this may meet the needs of the water exporters, but in the long term we will all lose because the so-called solutions are neither comprehensive nor sustainable. We can and should do better. #

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1760242.html [1]