Peripheral canal would destroy, not save, delta agriculture

Prior to the Delta Vision process, the Blue Ribbon Task Force members and the governor apparently decided that a peripheral canal of some sort was necessary to supply water to the state, and that the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta could be protected better than it is now while operating an isolated conveyance canal.

These assumptions are wrong. The task force did not discover these errors because they ignored the reasons a canal is not necessary for water supply and the reasons the delta would be trashed if Sacramento River water were diverted into a canal before it enters the delta.

This apparent pro-canal bias led to a failure to address either the impacts of a canal or alternatives that would meet Delta Vision's goal of water supply without a canal.

The report does not call for analysis of the increase in salinity in the delta that any isolated export of Sacramento River water would cause, particularly during months and years when flow in the river is low. Fresh water inflow from the San Joaquin and east side rivers already has been largely eliminated by export to the Bay Area and elsewhere. A technical analysis soon will be available that demonstrates this inevitable rise in salinity. Such a rise would be a disaster. It not only would destroy delta agriculture, but would cause the delta to become a salty inland bay.

The report ignores the fact that exporting water through the isolated portion of a "dual- conveyance facility" would increase salinity to higher than acceptable levels in the through-delta portion for either export to others or for use in the delta. A dual-conveyance system is therefore unsustainable.

The report does not make it clear that a canal would have to go through the delta -- not around it -- because of existing development on the east side. It would sever waterways, roads, farm fields, irrigation and drainage systems, and the circulation of channel waters.

It would create blind sloughs where salinity, dissolved oxygen and water hyacinth could not be controlled. It would be a barrier to major flood flows from south and east of the canal and cause increased flooding. It would cost billions of dollars and do nothing to increase the already inadequate statewide developed water supply.

The report does not even mention the plan submitted to the task force by the South and Central Delta water agencies, which incorporates the Delta Corridor Plan. It would separate and protect the San Joaquin fishery from the export system; it would keep in-channel salinity at levels that would preserve delta farms, and it would assist in quick recovery of exports and delta protection in the event of multiple levee failures caused by a major earthquake. It would maximize the water available for export while protecting the delta.

It also would cost less and could be implemented faster.

The task force report also does not mention that the fish species most endangered thrive best in water with low salinity.

Delta farmers are the primary maintainers of the nonurban levees that preserve the basic pattern of channels and lands that now constitute the delta. The report does not acknowledge that these farmers could not survive an increase in salinity caused by isolated conveyance of export water. It does not propose another means of levee maintenance. It does not discuss the consequences if levees are abandoned.

Overall, the report proposes protection of delta agriculture, and then makes proposals that would destroy agriculture.

Hildebrand, of Manteca, is a farmer and engineer.