Skip to main content

Sacramento County has joined other Delta region cities and counties, family farmers, fishermen, Indian Tribes, environmentalists and Southern California ratepayers in the battle to stop the Governor's plan to build peripheral tunnels to divert more water to corporate agribusiness and southern California.

On July 24, 2012, the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the currently proposed draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). "The current plan proposes alternatives and mitigation for the construction of a major water conveyance system in the Delta with little regard to the ongoing concerns expressed by the County of Sacramento," according to a statement from the County.

“Sacramento County has remained engaged through-out the BDCP process and has consistently expressed concerns with the scale of the proposed BCDP project alternatives and the potential lasting and irreversible impacts on this county, our Delta communities, the local economy, and existing water rights," said the Board of Supervisor’s Chairman, Don Nottoli.

"The County is also concerned with improving the health of the Delta ecosystem and maintaining a reliable water supply and has worked cooperatively in efforts to help find solutions to these important issues; however, the BDCP process thus far has done little to address local concerns," he stated. "At this point, the State is offering no enforceable assurances that local needs and impacts will be addressed and instead is poised to forge ahead with a plan which has far too many unanswered questions regarding its viability and long-term impacts on our community and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Importantly, for these and other reasons, Sacramento County opposes the current BDCP.”

Sacramento County has established a new website covering Delta issues, including the county's opposition to the Peripheral Tunnels: http://www.sacramentoriverdelta.net/...

On the day after the County passed the resolution opposing the current BDCP process, Governor Jerry Brown announced his plan for the construction of two peripheral tunnels that would take water from three intakes on the Sacramento River near Courtland and Hood to deliver water to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and southern California water agencies.

The peripheral tunnels are the latest incarnation of the peripheral canal plan that was decisively defeated by California voters in November 1982.

Brown shocked the Capitol press corp when he stated at the press conference, "I want to get s--t done," in defensively responding to press questions.

"Analysis paralysis is not why I came back 30 years later to handle some of the same issues," Brown said. "At this stage, as I see many of my friends dying - I went to the funeral of my best friend a couple of weeks ago - I want to get s--t done."

The construction of the peripheral tunnels is expected to hasten the extinction of Central Valley chinook salmon, steelhead, Delta and longfin smelt and other fish species, according to agency and independent scientists.

The construction of the "conveyance" could also dramatically raise rates for Southern California water customers. A groundbreaking economic analysis released on August 7 by Food & Water Watch reveals that Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) customers could be on the line for $2,003 to $9,182 per customer to pay for the 37-mile Peripheral Tunnels project.

California Water Impact Network (C-WIN) President Carolee Krieger urges Los Angeles residents to learn from Santa Barbara County’s costly mistakes.

"In 1991, Santa Barbara County voters approved the Coastal Aqueduct at an estimated cost of $270 million," said Krieger. "The aqueduct ended up costing nearly $1.7 billion and has not been necessary to meet the County's water needs. California ratepayers and taxpayers should expect the same bad deal with the Peripheral Tunnels."

The white paper, written by ECONorthwest, a respected professional economics, planning, and financial consulting services firm, analyzes the impacts that the costs of building and operating the tunnels would have on LADWP ratepayers. It outlines a low-cost scenario of $20.6 billion, and a high-cost scenario of $47.2 billion. For each, they evaluate the costs if the state and federal water projects evenly split the costs of the tunnel and related activities, and if the state project paid 100 percent.

To download the report, go to: http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/...

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site