GrokSurf's San Diego

Local observations on water, environment, technology, law & politics

A Peripheral Canal

Posted by George J Janczyn on April 23, 2010

I was saving a comment about a possible Peripheral Canal to post here at an appropriate time and today I saw two interesting perspectives on it, one from On the Public Record and the article it references from the LA Daily News. They make some good points and after reading them, now seems as good a time as any for my comment:

I’m concerned how controversial and emotional issues have clouded discussion about a peripheral canal or pipeline. As far as I’m concerned, a new delivery route around the delta is probably the only way to protect the southern half of the state against a complete cutoff of water from the north due to potential delta levee failures and saltwater intrusion from rising sea levels. As long as we’re pumping water out of the delta, that danger exists. When the breaking point for the delta is reached, it will be catastrophic for SoCal — and taking the long-term view, such a delta malfunction seems inevitable. As for the argument that a bypass development would allow greedy SoCal agribusiness and cities to take more water than ever, I believe safeguards could and should be implemented to assure it would not be used to increase the amount of water sent south. For me, the most important thing is to provide a safer route for transfers of agreed-upon amounts. Reliability and security is my concern.

See also this recent comment about north-south water transfers, and from about a year ago this interesting observation, both from On the Public Record.

 

2 Responses to “A Peripheral Canal”

  1. […] it), a conveyance to move water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. George Janczyn at GrokSurf explains the no-win dilemma at the heart of the issue: Southern California faces disaster if (when?) the delta collapses and the southland can no longer […]

  2. Don Wood said

    You mention that you think “safeguards could and should be implemented to assure it would not be used to increase the amount of water sent south”. What would those safeguards look like, how would they work, and who would enforce them? If that had been made clear in the water bills that passed in the legislature I may have been inclined to support the giant ($11 billion) water project bond on the ballot in November. But since they were not included in the bill package, I plan to vote No on the bond initiative this Fall.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s