Re: [env-trinity] Peter Gleick Viewpoints: Why I’m still confused about the proposed tunnels in the Delta

[kristi bevard]

May I place this either on the C-WIN.Org page or fb for C-WIN.

Please advise.

Thank you.
Kristi


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:53 PM, Tom Stokely <tstokely at att.net> wrote:

>
> Viewpoints: Why I’m still confused about the proposed tunnels in the DeltaSpecial
> to The BeePUBLISHED WEDNESDAY, NOV. 06, 2013
> I and my colleagues at the Pacific Institute <http://www.pacinst.org/> have
> worked on California water issues for more than a quarter of a century. It
> is therefore no surprise that we get asked on a regular basis by friends,
> journalists and colleagues what we think about the efforts underway to
> resolve the problems of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and in particular,
> about the proposed massive tunnel project to divert water from the
> Sacramento River to the conveyance aqueducts south of the Delta.
> The purpose of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan proposals, ostensibly, is
> to resolve the joint problems of 1. ensuring reliable water supplies south
> of the Delta, and 2. restoring the damaged ecosystems and fisheries damaged
> by the current design and operation of water infrastructure. These are
> supposed to be “co-equal” goals. Will the new proposals achieve this? I
> don’t know what to think, because I cannot get the critical information
> necessary to make an informed judgment. Here are some questions that should
> have been answered long ago:
> “How much water will this new system take out of the Delta?”
> *Uh, we don’t know.*
> Why? Because: “Future scientific studies will identify project yield.”
> This fact alone should set off alarm bells. The project documents, to the
> extent you can get detailed information out of them, suggest anywhere from
> 4.8 million to 5.8 million acre-feet a year would be exported for the State
> Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project, not including the
> additional 1.7 million acre-feet or so that comes out of the Delta for
> Northern California users, and not including water taken out even before it
> reaches the Delta.
> The upper end of this range is what Southern California water contractors
> think they’ll get and is one of the reasons they’re so anxious for the
> full-size version of the project to proceed. But that upper range is even
> more water than recent exports from the Delta, which averaged 5.4 million
> acre-feet a year from 1995 to 2011. Yet most scientists agree that a key to
> fixing the ecological problems of the Delta is to take less water out, not
> more.
> “What will this infrastructure, or the water it provides, cost?”
> *We don’t know.*
> Why? Because there is no agreed-upon design, no final information about
> land costs or contracting or interest rates or much more, including
> especially hard-to-measure ecological costs and benefits. Current numbers
> being bandied about are $25 billion with interest costs. I think we can
> safely say that this is the bare minimum, given the routine and severe cost
> escalations common to such projects. And if you hear someone quote a
> cheaper number, they’re leaving something out.
> “Who’s going to pay for it?”
> *We don’t know, since it depends on what “it” is.*
> There is a clear agreement that most of the infrastructure cost should be
> paid for by the direct beneficiaries who receive water. But who will pay
> for the ecosystem improvements and efforts to fix damages already caused by
> existing water infrastructure? How will the costs be split among irrigation
> beneficiaries vs. urban water beneficiaries? Current vs. future ratepayers?
> We don’t know.
> “Well, can I look at a cost-benefit study or an evaluation of alternative
> options?”
> *No, at least not an official one.*
> And the unofficial ones, which have reached completely opposite
> conclusions about whether there are any net benefits at all or whether
> non-structural options can play a role, are controversial, incomplete in
> what they count and riddled with questionable and untested assumptions. For
> example, most of them leave out full evaluations of ecosystem benefits, or
> the potential for cutting water demands south of the Delta by improving
> water-use efficiency.
> “Will the ecosystem repairs and restoration happen along with the
> infrastructure construction?”
> *We don’t know.*
> Why? Because the funding mechanisms are completely different, regulators
> and policymakers don’t agree about what changes are necessary to fix the
> ecosystems and ecosystem restoration isn’t a simple engineering problem
> amenable to technical fixes.
> “What rules will govern its operation and who will strictly monitor and
> enforce those rules?”
> *We don’t know.*
> Presumably a combination of state water agencies, independent oversight
> boards and water users, but the details are not final. History shows that
> clear operating rules and oversight are vital to successful water projects.
> Should the project of this magnitude be built before such rules are in
> place?
> “What provisions will be put in place to change the operating rules as
> climate change increasingly alters water conditions and in the event that
> new science shows new problems or advantages?”
> *We don’t know.*
> A key to effective water management in the future will be the ability to
> modify and adapt to changing conditions. We know the climate is changing,
> and that California’s water systems are vulnerable. But the current system
> is designed for a stable climate. The future one cannot be.
> Provide the answer to these questions and then the public – and perhaps
> the voters – can have a real debate about the pros and cons before shovels
> go in the ground and more dollars get thrown around. We’re supposed to get
> some of the final project documents in just a few weeks after many years
> and dollars spent planning. Honest and complete answers to the questions
> posed above must be provided if California voters and decision-makers are
> to make informed choices about the path forward for California water. Good
> water policy in California will only come about if it is guided by sound
> science, eyes-open analysis and public transparency.
> ------------------------------
> *Peter Gleick is president of the Pacific Institute in Oakland, and member
> of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.*
>
> _______________________________________________
> env-trinity mailing list
> env-trinity at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/env-trinity
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20131107/00785c91/attachment.html>