Synopsis: A $10 billion plan to build a canal around the Delta would not deliver significantly more water to cities and farms if it were in place this year, new data shows.Water agencies and politicians from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on down have repeatedly stressed that water shortages this year from the Bay Area to San Diego prove the need for such a canal. It would divert water around the Delta for delivery to farms and cities. But numbers developed by a state-run planning group seeking to build the canal show it would not deliver more water in dry years, the Contra Costa Water District stated this week. Link:
David O. Powell - Pasadena
David Powell, B.S. Civil Engineering, Cal-Tech; former U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, formerly California Dept. of Water Resources Chief Engineer of San Diego office; water and hydro-electric engineer with Bechtel Corporation; Assistant Chief Engineer Alameda County Water District; Vice-President and Chief of Planning for Bookman-Edmonston Engineering, Glendale, California; presently retired.
My reaction to the above-cited article is "what utter nonsense!"
"... numbers developed by a state-run planning group seeking (emphasis added) to build the canal..." yet the thrust of the article is opposition to the plan. A later paragraph refers to "...Gary Bobker, program manager of The Bay Institute, an environmental group, and a member of the conservation plan's steering committee." Mr. Bobker is quoted as stating "If you build a very expensive facility and don't improve water supply much, does that create more incentive for water agencies to weaken existing environmental and water quality standards?"
Sub Rosa Note: As best as we have been able to find online the original cost of the Peripheral Canal, not including offsite levees, was $1.5 billion in 1982. Recalculated in today's dollars at a 4% per year monetary inflation rate, would be about $4.3 billion.