Keywords:anadromous fish, biological opinion (BiOp), Central Valley Project (CVP), fisheries, Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta, water project operations
Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and...
Resolution of the Delta’s water supply, water quality, and fish problems may involve building various structures, possibly including gates, pumps, canals, levees, and dams, and undertaking landscaping rearrangements to improve habitat for several species of flora and fauna. Resolution also involves changing water flow regimes in ways that would make more or less water, but probably less, available for human uses. This work and these changes will cost serious money. Cost estimates for many of these actions have not yet been developed.
This paper explores approaches to financing these “improvements” and “mitigations.” While a little abstract, this is abstraction that matters. It will determine from whose pockets a good deal of money will come.
California has a long history of financing water projects. The first section of this paper reviews this history, in hopes of identifying water-financing principles that might be adapted to Delta improvements and mitigation. Some deep-seated controversies about how Delta improvements should be financed have roots in this history, and it may be helpful to point them out.
A core idea in California’s approach to financing water projects is that beneficiaries should pay for them. Decades ago, this was a straightforward proposition – people or water districts should pay for the necessary dams, canals, and pumps and the costs of operating them in proportion to the amount of water they received. In the current age of rising environmental sensitivity, it is a little muddier. An alternative formulation that applies, at least crudely, to housing developments and highway projects, is that project proponents should pay to mitigate at least some of the environmental harm that their project is likely to cause. The second section of this paper explores this controversial subject. It seems unlikely that any consensus can be reached about how to finance facilities in the Delta without reaching some agreement about how to deal with this matter.
This paper was first issued in July, 2008. This version contains a few clarifications made in response to the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s reviewers. The author is grateful for their suggestions.
It is the policy of the California Water Impact Network to: • Oppose and work to defeat the construction of the Twin Tunnels...
It is the policy of the California Water Impact Network to:
• Oppose and work to defeat the construction of the Twin Tunnels Project which would divert water from the Sacramento River to the South Delta pumps before it gets to the Bay-Delta.
• Support and work to achieve the reduction in Delta exports to a maximum of 3 million acre-feet per year. Oppose any increased Delta exports to Central and Southern California.
• Support and work to achieve the elimination of paper water from State Water Project and Central Valley Project contracts.
• Support regional water self-sufficiency through conservation, recycling, storm water capture and other “soft path” means.
• Support upgrading Delta levees to withstand both sea level rise and the risk of a major earthquake.
• Support increased water supply reliability for State Water Project urban areas by reinstatement of the Urban Water Preference in State Water contracts and returning the Kern Water Bank to the public to store
the Urban Preference south of the Delta as a drought supply.
The Bay Institute's primer Gone with the Flow describes in plain language how runoff flowing from the mountain watersheds ringing California’s Central Valley...
The Bay Institute's primer Gone with the Flow describes in plain language how runoff flowing from the mountain watersheds ringing California’s Central Valley provided coldwater paradises for salmon returning to their native streams; turned lowland rivers and their floodplains into a rich source of food and shelter for young fish; mingled in the Delta’s complex maze of marshes and sloughs; and created a vast expanse of brackish water habitat essential for estuarine creatures in the upper reaches of San Francisco Bay.
The primer also explains how the lack of access to most upland streams now forces migratory fish to cope with undesirable, often lethal flow conditions; how runoff in lowland rivers has been shifted from spring to summer, or even almost completely cut off in the San Joaquin basin, with disastrous consequences for the environment; how reverse flows in Delta channels kill hundreds of millions of aquatic organisms each year; and how the Bay is now in a permanent ecological drought because of the diversion of half its freshwater inflow.
This report presents results from an analysis of the institutional and legal options for more effective ecosystem management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta....
This report presents results from an analysis of the institutional and legal options for more effective ecosystem management in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. It is part of a wide-ranging study on the management of multiple ecosystem stressors in the Delta. .