It may be hard to remember, but last fall the state had not one but two special sessions. The first, on health care, ended with the rejection of the flawed mandate proposal ABX1 1. The second, on water, appeared to have also ended in acrimony, as Republicans insisted on $3 billion for new dams that Democrats were unwilling to support.

But even though the issue slipped below most of our radar screens, supporters of dams and canals have been hard at work promoting these obsolete 20th century technologies as some sort of “solution” to a 21st century crisis. The Planning and Conservation League reports on the California Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to enlist Arnold and DiFi to promote an $11 billion water bond – with $3 billion for dams:

PCL has recently gotten an Insider scoop that the California Chamber of Commerce is pressuring both U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to endorse its environmentally-devastating $11.69 billion water bond initiative.

The bond, which the Chamber hopes to place on the November 2008 ballot, is strongly opposed by environmental groups throughout California for its potential effects on the state’s natural resources. The bond would:

   –Include $3.5 billion explicitly for dam construction, plus billions more that could be used for dams on California rivers.

   –Establish a dangerous new “water commission” empowered to fund and build a peripheral canal and divert massive amounts of water from the Sacramento River around the imperiled California Bay-Delta Estuary for large-scale corporate agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley and sprawl development in Southern California. (Over-pumping of water from the Delta during the past eight years has already contributed to the collapse of the Delta ecosystem, including plummeting salmon and other fish populations.)

   –Eliminate public and legislative oversight and leave the fate of the Delta and Northern California rivers in the hands of politically appointed bureaucrats likely to have strong ties to special interests in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California.

The Chamber’s push is seen by many as an end-run around the Governor’s own Delta Vision process, which has brought together stakeholders from the environmental, business, water, agricultural, and Delta communities.

That plan, which would eliminate badly needed oversight protections and saddle the state with $760 million a year in bond service costs, is bad enough. But over the weekend the PCL reported at the California Progress Report that bond supporters are now trying to do an end run around  voters, as the state Department of Water Resources is now arguing that it is not bound by the 1982 rejection of the Peripheral Canal by voters:

According to a recent budget change proposal submitted to the state Legislature, DWR intends to start preparing to build a new “Alternative Delta Conveyance” facility, which would divert water directly from the Sacramento River before it enters the Delta, sending it directly to the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California….

Under its proposal, DWR would revive studies and update construction plans that it abandoned in 1982 after voters overwhelmingly rejected its “Peripheral Canal” proposal in a statewide referendum due to fears that such a facility would result in more Northern California water exported to the ever-growing south state, and that the Delta would be left as a saltwater lake rather than a true estuary.

The budget request from DWR follows a recent letter sent to Assemblywoman Wolk (D-Davis) by DWR Director Lester Snow, stating that according to DWR’s analysis, DWR has the authority to build a peripheral canal without legislative or voter approval.

More analysis below…

As the PCL explained, the Peripheral Canal would be a catastrophe for the Delta. The main environmental threat to the Delta is increased salinity due to export of fresh water for farmers and residential users further south. The Peripheral Canal is designed to bypass the delta altogether – finishing off the Delta as a freshwater system. The result would be ruinous for water quality, fishing, and stressed levee systems. It would be sacrificing the Delta once and for all in order to continue allowing California users to overuse what they already have.

It’s worth reminding ourselves why dams and canals are such a bad idea. First, they simply are not necessary. The Planning and Conservation League has weighed in with its own plan that emphasizes conservation programs, watershed restoration, and groundwater retention (in other words, pumping the water back into aquifers to be stored underground, a more environmentally friendly and sustainable solution than dams). If properly funded, they note, several million acre feet of water could be produced through these more sustainable methods. One acre foot typically equals the annual water usage by a family of four. The state’s own water assessment plan shows that conservation can eliminate the “need” for these new dams.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, we face a changing climate that is likely to leave us with less water to go around – making these dams even more unnecessary, a waste of precious money that should go instead toward global warming appropriate solutions. California is a very drought-prone climate. Climate change in California is expected to produce a hotter and drier climate, with a reduced snowpack. Precipitation in the Sierra is expected to fall as rain more often than snow, forcing significant shifts in how water is stored.

But the problem isn’t just that the Sierra will see less snow and more rain, but that it will see less water, period. And the problem isn’t limited to the Sierra – as anyone who’s been to the Southwest recently knows, the whole region is suffering from reduced rainfall. Some experts suggest we may be on the verge of a 90 year drought in the US Southwest, and that Lakes Powell and Mead may never return to their previous levels.

Faced with the prospect of prolonged drought, it seems foolish for California to assume it can solve its problem merely through added storage – why build more storage for less rain?

Senator Feinstein should not agree to this reckless and unnecessary plan, and should instead use her considerable influence to help put a better, less expensive, more sustainable and environmentally sensible water bond on the ballot this November. Water is our most precious commodity, and it should not be left in the hands of far-right zealots who cannot bring themselves to admit the need to abandon the failed ways of the past and instead construct sensible solutions for a new climate.