I was drafted as a substitute economist on a panel discussing the PPIC report "Comparing Futures for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta" at UC Davis on Wednesday. Our audience was about 15-20 bureaucrats from various federal agencies who were visiting California for the annual program to learn about agricultural issues in California.
So I read the report in its entirety and found it to give a clear and convincing analysis that leads to the conclusion that the Peripheral Canal is a better than the other options (do nothing, end exports from Delta, build a dual conveyance facility).
The case for the PC is all the more powerful because business as usual will NOT continue -- either because the pumps will be shut down to protect endangered fish, because rising sea level will bring more salt to the Delta, and/or an earthquake will cause catastrophic levee failure. (Farmers in the west and central Delta are going to be out of business no matter what.)
The PC is "better" because it will reduce the chance of a sudden interruption of exports due to levee failure, increase the quality of that water (less salt), and improve the chances of endangered fish (and the Delta ecosystem) recovering.
The downside is the $10 billion cost for the PC, but first, it gives better value for money than building dams, and second, it has a ten year payback -- based on the cost of continuing with business as usual.
Who will pay? I suggested that Metropolitan Water District of SoCal will pay half the cost (for half the rights to water exports?) and that the Feds/State will pay the other half (since when did farmers pay for water infrastructure?).*
Who will get the water shipped via the PC? Those who pay, obviously, but I suggested that markets would do a good job of reallocating that water and allowing those who have paid for the PC to recover their outlay. The PC also gives a HUGE benefit to upstream NorCal farmers (they can sell their water south of the Delta), so perhaps they will pay for conveyance.
Those were my opinions, and they upset some people, but what can I do? Tell them that everything's going to be alright? Not even Bob Marley would say that about the Delta.
Bottom Line: It's necessary to build the Peripheral Canal ASAP. NorCal will not lose anything for it (pay nothing, lose no water since exports will not increase), and SoCal needs it if it wants to have any hope of seeing those 6MAF. Those who live in the Delta may not be happy with the PC, but their lifestyle is going to change no matter what.
* MET gets about half the water from the State Water Project and nothing from the Central Valley Project -- or about 1-2MAF out of 6MAF total. I am NOT implying that MET would increase its share of water, but I AM implying MET may get stuck with more of the cost. I'm not married to any cost sharing ratio.
08 August 2008
Yes on the Peripheral Canal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
The peripheral canal was part of the original plan for the State Water Project, but was never built.
It has been my experience in life that if you do something half-assed, you usually get half-assed results. Case in point: the mess the Delta is in.
There are those screaming that the Delta will be forever changed by the PC; but the truth is that the Delta is already forever changed and can never go back. Even if we abandoned the Delta altogether and tried to revert it to marshland, it wouldn't be the same. The islands are deeply subsided, some 25 feet below sea level, so when they flood, it creates a lake, not a marsh. That's a different ecosystem altogether.
Trying to protect the status quo by raising all the levees (1100 to 1300 miles of them) is cost prohibitive, an enormous expense with no guarantee of success. Many of the levees still in use today were built in the post-Gold Rush days, and are just basically piles of dirt.
The Delta is a disaster waiting to happen. I hope that something productive gets done before it is too late.
Forgive me if I have mentioned this in some previous post, but another benefit of the Peripheral Canal is that it can be operated in such a was as to allow the salinity level of the Delta to fluctuate periodically, the way Nature intended. The relatively steady state conditions of the past 50 years have benefited invasive species, and hurt the native ones, who evolved adapting to these fluctuations.
@Anon -- You're right (another example, the BART extension to SFO that happened 30 years later...), but Delta conditions NOW (and limited on water exports) make the case for the PC even more compelling.
@ Philip -- you're EXACTLY right. I was implying that mechanism when I mentioned that the ecosystem would recover...
One of the main reasons given for building a peripheral canal is to protect against a large earthquake that could destroy the delta and cut off water supplies to the south. Does the report you reviewed mention how they would build the proposed canal to ensure that it too wouldn't be broken or damaged by the same earthquake?
Yes -- the report has a long discussion of earthquakes (read it). The bottom line is that the PC would be stronger and easier to repair. Without the PC, an earthquake could easily cause a "big gulp" -- simultaneous flooding of 20+ islands as levees (really dikes) collapsed and flooded the "islands (really polders below sea level) -- the recovery in a non PC scenario would take months (years) and cost $8-15 billion -- during which time there would be no water exports, obviously.
Good coverage. A couple of issues:
I don't think it's accurate to say that only the Met, and not farmers, are willing to step up to pay for this conveyance. I think Westlands and other south-of-Delta ag water providers are equally onboard, so the jab about farmers not paying for their conveyance does not apply.
Also, really doubtful NorCal wants to help pay for canal. A few water-rich districts like GCID might benefit from improved availability to sell water down south, but the consensus up north appears to be that not only is it not a project for their benefit, but that the enabling legislation should contain a supermajority requirement for repeal of the area of origin statutes, for their protection, so that the canal can't be built and then a few years down the road Southern California repeals the area of origin statutes so as to REALLY suck the North dry.
I have finally had a chance to wade through the PPIC report, and as an academic economist, I find much of it pretty shaky. I'll raise one issue here.
Their water demand assumption is based on a forecast of 65 million population in 2050. This is unjustifiably high, and the primary reference they provide for this does not even exist. CA Dept. of Finance projects population at 59.5 million, and they are considered by most to be high. US Census doesn't project to 2050, but are 3 million below CA dept of finance in 2030 and on track for about 55 million in 2050. Private forecasts that I know of also point towards 55 million.
So if you assume 10 million extra urban water users than is reasonable, you certainly are going to drive up water scarcity costs. The question is how much? My intuition says a lot, but perhaps you have a better idea since you are familiar with these models.
At any rate, you have to wonder about such a sloppy job forecasting and documenting the most important driver of future water demand. Perhaps Bechtel has a demography unit that gave them the number?
Jeff -- good point, but I think it's irrelevant. Say that the population in 2050 is 40 million (i.e., about the same as now). Does a small er population make the no action scenario more attractive? No, since the Delta is likely to be inundated. How about dual conveyance? Nope. How about cutting exports 100% Nope.
I agree that more people will have the ability to pay more for water, but without exports, the real harm is going to hit south Valley farms that will "lose their water" (either by seizure or sales). That harm will be local (dry communities) and national (less food for export out of CA). So, I think the PC is still the best chance of preserving exports while the Delta is inundated.
Not relevant? Then, what was the point of the big modelling exercise to simulate future water markets. Actually, it makes the no export scenario more attractive.
The report shows the no export scenario is greatly preferred from an environmental standpoint (and also from recreational and other values). But, the PPIC says the costs of ending exports are too high.
How are these costs estimated? By calculating the value the water would have to downstream users. Overestimating the demand 15% will drive up the number a lot.
Will there still be high costs? Yes. But lower costs makes the No Export scenario (and its associated benefits which are unestimated in the report) more attractive relative to the canal.
This is a big mistake. Overestimating a key variable by that much and using a fictional reference as justification is not a gray area.
Jeff -- good question. I am not the report author, but I think that ending exports is politically impossible. That means that the relevant comparisons were among biz as usual, dual and PC...
The numbers are just a guideline to quantify the magnitude of damage from no exports, IMO.
If Jerry Brown runs again for governor and wins that election, he may get the biggest taste of deja vu ever.
I was able to convince the editorial Mercury News to support of the Peripheral Canal during the 1982 referendum. But alot of good it did as Northern California voters crushed the only feasible method of fixing the broken Delta water delivery system.
When the State Water Project was designed during Governor "Pat" Brown's administration, the canal was an essential part of the plumbing to make it safe and efficient. Without it, most water officials knew the rivers would run backwards, and fish would suffer serious declines.
When his son, Gov. Jerry Brown, put restrictions on pumping in dry years to avoid pumping more salt to cities and farm lands, the greedy interests (most notably JG Boswell) took to the job of conning voters to dump the canal proposal and the restrictions that were tied to it in the enabling legislation.
Since then, 2 million tons of EXTRA salt per year have flowed with the diverted water, most of it onto farmlands, with guarantees that the land would no longer support agriculture and then it would be easier to justify paving it over to hold down the dust. Son today we have lost the fish, tomorrow we will lose the farm produce.
My biggest concern and something I haven't seen address yet is the amount of water that will be diverted from the Sacramento River before it reaches the San Joaquin River. The previous PC plans of 1982 called for a 400' wide, 30' deep canal. This canal could easily divert most of the Sacramento River during drought conditions. They also say the canal will release fresh water into the eastern delta and that way improve the quality of the delta waters. But with the sharp decline of fresh water going straight to the San Joaquin River, from the Sacramento River, the salt water will naturally encroach deeper into the delta waters. As long as the farms are turned into housing tracts and people continue to absorb all the natural resources at their disposal then we will always have problems with water quality and quantity. The victims will be the people of the San Francisco bay area. We always feel the sharp claws of the water districts when there is a drought. We have rationing and upcharges. The Malard Resevoir whch is a holding tank for drinking water to much of Contra Costa County is run by a water district in Southern California ironically. But this cannot be seen as another North/South thing. The farmers will get by with federal monies. They can always sell the farms to developers like so many others. I would however make one demand if I were on the PC planning commission. I would demand diversion canals which caused the water to flow through canals/pipes which become narrower, a cataract that would increase water pressure so that without massive amounts of water doing the work we could use the PC diversions to produce electricity via turbines. As water escapes the turbines back into the canal another diversion would start the next system and this could go on ad infinitem. Very cheap power. Very big dividends. Even farmers would be happy. Mike Spencer
This PC canal idea is the most ridiculous idea in 100 years! The health of the Delta in 2003 was great! It wasn't until 2005 when Delta Exports were increased that the fish started to die in mass proportions!! Not one of these idiots have addressed the real problem ! To many people living in and Arid desert.AKA southern CA! Shut the pumps off and the delta will return in health in several years! There is a 5 billion dolar bond already passed to address the levee failure! Using this money as it was intended for will stop breach and future issues! Where is the talk of desalinazation in SOCAL! I have heard nothing of this! Ridiculous! Kill the entire delta ecosystem so those idiots can live in the desert! Now that's hollywood for ya! What about water rights people ask? Well this stupid state has issued 400 million year in water rights! But low and behold there is only 125 million in supply!! So who really has the rights to the water? The people who live in the natural flow! I can't wait till the environmentalist tie this one up in the courts! Good luck!!!
Nothing like trying to do a Multi-Level spinal fusion with a BandAid!!!!
Whether it is YES or NO on the Peripheral Canal (or some other Delta facility) we need to know its full capital and mitigation costs. What if its capital costs are $10 billion (really a guestimate at this point folks) and even if water beneficiaries pay this costs, we still have environmental and social mitigation costs. Who will pay those costs?
Let's say that those costs are borne by the general obligations of the State of California (that is you all citizens). How will MWDSC and other districts raise funds to pay their shares of the $10 billion? Well, let's say revenue bonds. Bond underwriters will keenly observe that mitigation costs are general funded. Without paying for the mitigation, the project cannot get built. What if mitigation is another $10 billion? How likely is it that our beloved Legislature is going to craft a GO Bond agreement to pay for mitigation? If there is no funding or questionable funding for the GO portion, how likely will it be that underwriters will agree to revenue bonds for the agencies. As I see it, this Delta facility is not financially feasible, even if it somehow makes sense to the authors of the PPIC report or is economically feasible.
Post a Comment