These include things like conservation, improved groundwater and stormwater management, wastewater recycling, retirement of marginal farmlands, etc.

They typically cost less than new water projects, and yet – because no one even wants to talk about things like limiting growth (or even landscaping) in arid areas – water districts and irrigators make noises about their conservation efforts, and then start looking for new dam sites.

Until water users in arid areas start making the hard decisions about water priorities, environmental groups will force the courts to make those decisions for them.

The peripheral canal offers some real benefits to some users (and who exactly will be paying for it?), but simply building a peripheral canal and piping the same amount of water south would only buy a small improvement in Delta water quality.

We don’t simply need an efficient way to send more water south, we need more efficiency in water use in arid portions of the state.

For too long, those diverting water have not been confronted by the true costs of doing so, a reality which is starting to change, though slowly.

After all, taxpayers are footing the relief efforts for those decimated by the salmon closures, and while the independent report I referenced in the article recommends that those who benefit from the peripheral canal be asked to pay for it, I can’t help but notice the last state bond issue – as well as the one in the works – are aimed directly at all the state’s taxpayers.

Here are other, more vetted tidbits.

New Dams Are Not Needed – The California Water Plan proves that wise investments in water conservation and efficiency, recycling and reclamation and improved groundwater management will meet current and future water needs, while supporting our growing population and economy.

Dams Will Not Drought-Proof California – Even if these new dams existed today, they would be just has empty as our existing reservoirs simply because they are dependent on rainfall. Even if we began building new dams today, they would not store any additional water for more than 20 years. Increased conservation, recycling, and reclamation can provide relatively immediate instant from drought.

Dams Are Inefficient And Costly – New dams will cost billions of dollars and will not produce much additional water supply (the proposed Temperance Flat Dam will store a minor amount of water 1 year out of 4), primarily because we have already built more than 1,400 dams in California and all the most productive dam sites are taken. More than 2.5 million acre-feet of water evaporates from our current surface storage reservoirs every year. Most of the dams proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger are net energy consumers (they will not produce more energy).

Dams Are Destructive – Existing dams block 90% salmon spawning habitat, have contributed to the extinction or decline of 69% of California’s native fish species (including salmon), and have resulted in the destruction of 90% of riverside habitat. The have also decimated the cultural heritage of Native American Tribes and the commercial fishing industry (20 years ago, there were 10,000 commercial salmon fishing boats in California, this year there are none, let’s hope there are more next year).

Thanks for surfacing these issues.

B-

I think we’re at the point (and have been for a few years now) that there are sufficient Bay-Delta protections in place to ensure that a peripheral canal could not be operated in the way you suggest

The last five years have seen record amounts of water pumped from the Delta, and even after the collapse of several native species, Judge Wanger had to invalidate a “biological opinion” crafted by the water folks that would have permitted the removal of even more water.

Thus, I’m glad we agree on the necessity of safe conveyance, but we’re clearly a long, long ways apart when it comes to whether sufficient protections for the Delta are in place.

They clearly aren’t.

The ugly truth is this; people living in the arid regions of California are going to have to make some accommodations with the fact they live in a desert. Otherwise, the peripheral canal will simply become a way to move more water out of the Delta – and a more efficient method by which the Delta becomes a salt marsh.

Those of us in the North are skeptical of the peripheral canal because it’s not hard to see most of the Sacramento River being diverted and sent South in a massive canal, sparing residential and ag users the necessity of making any hard choices.

The problem isn’t that people live in dry parts of the state. It’s that they live in dry parts of the state and seemingly fail to realize it.

We keep hearing talk of conveyances and moving water south, but few even seem to pay lip service to restoring the delta.

You didn’t.

The days of the “blank check” are over, yet recent calls for conservation in the southland have led to instances of increased use.

How are those of us who are concerned about the delta supposed to interpret that? Are we supposed to somehow grow excited about the prospect of sending even more water south – and watching the delta turn into a saltwater marsh while our native species wither?

The wacky weed, it turns out, has been smoked (heavily) for decades now, and while I hear lots of talk about the canal’s benefits to the south, I hear little about how we’re going to ensure the health of the delta.

The all mighty dollar is the real problem that will slow down any real change; it always is. You can really split the water problems here into 2 sub catagories – Agriculture and SoCal big business. Ag is a huge problem to deal with; it is California’s identity to a large part and it is the vast majority of California’s GDP. Nobody wants to pick on a farmer and I should know as I grew up in the Central Valley on a farm. Farmers definately have their challenges but there is also an “us against them” mentality that clouds judgement when they have to deal with environmental issues. Water is cheap to them; the government assures this (through subsidies) as food production is a public safety issue. But flood irrigation is an atrocity and most all tracks are set up this way; there has been little change to this area of infrastructure. Really why change to more efficient water delivery systems (drip irrigation for one) when water is so cheap to them? To implement any such system would be a huge capital expense to any operation and everyone I know complains about food prices now; This is a real catch-22 situation and any effective change will be slow and painful.
As far as SoCal big business; they need cheap labor to process, sell and ship all the crap they get from China (LA ports are by far the largest volume inbound in the world). To accomplish this they need people who can afford to live at the wages they pay and this partialy means affordable utilities. As we have already seen they will fight any change tooth and nail and they have deep pockets which means lawyers which leads to court battles and years of nothing but the same old thing.
One thing I wonder about but know nothing about is de-salinization. I know that Isreal and many middle-east countries get most of their water this way; why not SoCal? Most of the population lives relatively close to the ocean and they spend billions to pump our water over the grapevine so I can’t imagine it would be more expensive. Just a thought.

However, I think that our water shortage this year is a political maneuver designed to build support for erecting about three more dams.

Kern county grows more cotton than any county in the south; of course, we then ship it all to China. Not only does the Kern river never see the Pacific ocean, it never sees highway 99. Just a bridge over a dry sandy depression where a river once was.

For my part, I don’t flush everytime I take a leak. If I could find one who wasn’t crazy, I’d be happy to shower with a friend.