Skip to main content

The California Legislature recently failed to approve legislation requiring a cost-benefit analysis before the peripheral canal or tunnel is built – and it is no surprise why the bill garnered so much opposition from corporate agribusiness and southern California water agencies.

The first comprehensive economic benefit-cost analysis of the water conveyance tunnels at the center of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), conducted by the University of Pacific’s Eberhardt School of Business, Business Forecasting Center, reveals that peripheral canal doesn’t make any economic or financial sense.

The UOP report states, “We find the tunnel is not economically justified, because the costs of the tunnel are 2.5 times larger than its benefits. Benefit-cost analysis is an essential and normal part of assessment and planning of large infrastructure projects such as the $13 billion water conveyance tunnel proposal, but has not been part of the BDCP.”  

Apparently, the members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee, who rejected Assemblymember Bill Berryhill’s bill calling for an independent cost-benefit analysis of the tunnel project, were afraid of a similar result if the bill, AB 2421, had ever become law.

“This report fills an important information gap for policy makers and water ratepayers who will ultimately bear the multi-billion costs of the project. The results can be easily updated if changing plans generate updated estimates of benefits and costs, but the gap between benefits and costs is so large that it seems unlikely that the tunnels could be economically justified in any future scenario,” according to the study.

The study examined the benefits, including export water supply, earthquake risk reduction, export water quality benefits and environmental benefits, and compared them to the costs, including capital costs, operating and maintenance costs and in-Delta and upstream costs.

“We find a benefit-cost ratio of 0.4, meaning that there is $2.50 of costs for every $1 in economic benefits. When these very low benefit-cost ratios are considered alongside the inconsistent and incomplete financial plans, it is clear that the Delta water conveyance tunnel proposed in the draft BDCP is not justified on an economic or financial basis,” the report concludes.

While the Brown and Obama administrations and corporate agribusiness have constantly touted “improved conveyance” as the "solution" to providing “reliability” to agriculture in California, the project’s construction would likely do the very opposite to Delta agriculture, according to the study.

“The Delta Protection Commission Economic Sustainability Plan estimated a water conveyance tunnel would result in an average of $65 million in annual losses for Delta agriculture; including about $50 million in losses from reduced water quality, and an additional $15 million in annual crop losses from roughly 8,000 acres of farmland lost to construction impacts and the physical footprint of the facilities,” the document reveals.

In essence, the water conveyance tunnel would take large tracts of the most fertile land in California, the Delta, out of agricultural production in order to divert massive quantities of Delta water to irrigate subsidized crops on drainage-impaired, toxin-laced land on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley.

Dr. Jeffrey Michael, Director of the Business Forecasting Center (BFC) at the University of the Pacific, is the report’s primary author. To read the full report, go to:

So not only does the peripheral canal or tunnel pose an enormous threat to the Bay-Delta ecosystem, but it is not economically or financially feasible, according to this groundbreaking report. The taxpayers and ratepayers will foot the bill for the tunnel – at costs 2.5 times the benefits – while billionaire agribusiness tycoon Stewart Resnick, the Westlands Water District and other subsidized corporate agribusiness interests will profit.

“The common people will pay for the canal and a few people will make millions,” said Caleen Sisk, Chief and Spiritual Leader of the Winnemem Wintu Tribe. “It will turn a once pristine water way into a sewer pipe. It will be all bad for the fish, the ocean and the people of California.”

The peripheral canal or tunnel, if built, would hasten the extinction of Central Valley chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta smelt, longfin smelt and other fish species, according to both agency and independent scientists. This project, now being fast-tracked by Brown and Obama administrations, would result in the destruction of the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas.

Opposition against the environmentally destructive and economically unfeasible conveyance project continues to mushroom. On the day before the UOP report was published, Restore the Delta released a powerfully-worded letter from 38 environmental, fishing, consumer, Native American and other groups alerting U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar of the enormous environmental and economic perils posed by the Obama administration’s support of the peripheral canal.

The groups said the administration is “poised to make an enormous mistake…and potentially drag the American people along with it,” by backing “construction of a world-record-size tunnel or pipes capable of diverting 15,000 cubic feet per second from the Sacramento River – nearly all of its average freshwater flow.”

“The planning for California’s water future must return to a lawful, science-based, inclusive, and transparent process,” the letter stated. “The San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary must not be stripped of the freshwater flows upon which so many vital public trust resources and West Coast communities depend. From its inception, this plan has been crafted by, and for, South-of-Delta exporters. They have used their economic power to influence and rush this half-baked, multi-billion dollar water tunnel.”

The broad coalition sounded the alarm after the Brown administration informed them that the State intends to proceed with construction of a peripheral canal or tunnel that the groups say “would have devastating ecological impacts.”

Organizations signing the letter include the Sierra Club California, Environmental Water Caucus, Friends of the River, California Water Impact Network, Winnemem Wintu Tribe, Golden Gate Salmon Association, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Center for Biological Diversity, Food and Water Watch, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, the Planning and Conservation League, the Environmental Justice Coalition for Water and dozens of other groups.

“The idea that you’re going to commit to building a $50 billion tunnel around the Delta that current science demonstrates won’t protect the estuary, and only later revise the science, develop assurances and decide how to operate it simply doesn’t pass the smell test,” said Bill Jennings, Executive Director/Chairman of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Board Member of the California Water Impact Network and Executive Committee Member of Restore the Delta. “You can bathe this pig in perfume and apply lipstick, but it still won’t fly.”

The complete letter is posted here:

The big question is: If the peripheral canal/tunnel plan is economically, financially and scientifically unfeasible, then why are Governor Jerry Brown, Natural Resources Secretary John Laird and U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar still committed to this boondoggle?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The answer to the question is the rich will get (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spirit Dancer, kurt


    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:29:59 PM PDT

  •  Good question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Spirit Dancer, Lujane, mrsgoo

    that they should answer.  This kind of reminds me of the another pipeline, the Keystone XL that the powers want to jamb down our throats.  The best thing to look for is the Koch Brothers, somewhere along the line, you can bet they have their hands in this mess.

  •  Corruption, cronyism, favoritism, incompetence (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane, mrsgoo, kurt

    and this example represents what is what is wrong with the USA;  why the rich are getting richer; and why we keep going deeper into debt as a nation and have nothing to show for it.    

    It is not about politics or ideology,  but instead it is the fundamental corruption that we sometimes allow and accept that permeates our politics.    

    We must demand an end to the scourge and hold those that cause the scourge accountable regardless of their political affiliation.    

    Victims of bigotry are the poorest, least influential members of society.......never the wealthiest, most educated, most overrepresented in high levels, and most influential. Bigotry hurts the least influential. To claim or say otherwise is absurd.

    by dailykozzer on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 04:52:49 PM PDT

  •  CA Aqueduct (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lujane, ozsea1, mrsgoo, kurt

    How much water does the California Aqueduct take away from the Delta?  The Delta-Mendota Canal takes ~4,500 cfs or so.  If there would be increased total flows leaving the Delta, then it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Delta would suffer.

    You have the power to change America. Yes We Can. Yes We Did. Yes We Will.

    by CA Pol Junkie on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 05:03:50 PM PDT

    •  The whole point of this exercise is to INCREASE (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wu ming, kurt, CA Pol Junkie

      exports. If they cannot get more water from the Delta, the water contractors want nothing to do with it. The reason they are pushing for a 15K CFS canal/tunnel is revealed below.....

      Glossary of Water Policy Terminology
       8500 This number refers to the California Department of Water Resources desired pumping rate for exporting water from the Delta to the State Water Project (SWP) measured in cubic feet per second (cfs). The SWP currently has permission to pump at 6680 cfs. The total pumping capacity of the SWP is 10,300 cfs, and the Federal export pumps have the capacity to pump at a rate of 6,200 cfs.
      SWP: 10.3 + CVP 6.2 = 16.5 CFS.

      Now they are throttling back to 9K (so we hear as even their own science says 15K will kill the Delta). You do not preserve an esturary by diverting water around it. My current sig is from the red flag memo from fisheries/wildlife. The red flag memo is fisheries saying - no chance in hell this will be permitted.

      if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

      by mrsgoo on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh and I forgot to add that the water contractors (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        are pushing the feds to ignore the science and just approve the damn thing right now!!!

        if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

        by mrsgoo on Mon Jun 18, 2012 at 09:47:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site