Dead in the Water

A History of Failed Attempts to Improve

Conveyance in the Delta

By: Kevin Dumler

Submitted to Dr. Jay Lund

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the class of ECI 155:

Water Resources Engineering and Planning

7 June 2015

2

Contents Abstract...................................................................................................................................... 3

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3

The Delta Before Conflict........................................................................................................ 3

A New Delta ........................................................................................................................... 4

The Importance of the Delta ................................................................................................... 5

Current Problems ................................................................................................................... 6

Past Attempts to Improve the Delta ............................................................................................ 7

1930 State Water Plan ........................................................................................................... 7

1949 Bureau of Reclamation Peripheral Proposal .................................................................. 8

1955 Biemond Plan ................................................................................................................ 9

1957 California Water Plan and the Trans-Delta System .......................................................10

1960 DWR Bulletin 76 ...........................................................................................................11

1982 Proposition 9 ................................................................................................................12

1998 Organization of CALFED ..............................................................................................12

Bay Delta Conservation Plan .................................................................................................12

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................13

Bibliography ..............................................................................................................................14

Table of Figures Figure 1: The Modern Delta and its location in California ........................................................... 4 Figure 2: The Bay-Delta Watershed and Major Water Projects. ................................................. 5 Figure 3: 1949 Reclamation Proposal map ................................................................................ 8 Figure 4: The Biemond Plan map ............................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: The 1957 California Water Plan map..........................................................................10 Figure 6: 1960 DWR Plan cover page .......................................................................................11 Figure 7: Prop 9 results by county .............................................................................................12

3

Abstract

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, historically one of the most productive ecosystems in

the world, is in serious decline. Under a business as usual approach, the Delta will not be able

to satisfy the needs of the environment, local residents, agriculture, or water exporters. The

problems, in various stages, have existed since the Delta became a hub for the California state

water system. Many projects have been proposed to mitigate some or all of these problems, one

of which the current Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). This paper examines past proposals

to fix the Delta and evaluates why they did not advance. These proposals are compared to the

BDCP to assess whether it is indeed a new approach to an old problem, or just another unfeasible

option in the long list of past proposals.

Introduction

The Delta Before Conflict

Inland from San Francisco Bay, at the confluence of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers,

lies the largest estuary on the West Coast of the Americas. For thousands of years, these rivers

have drained thousands of square miles of watershed. Historically, these sediment laden rivers

reached a flat area before Carquinez Strait, reducing the rivers’ velocities and causing them to

release much of their sediment in the present Delta. Flows varied by many orders of magnitude

tidally and seasonally. This combination formed 700,000 acres of tidal freshwater marsh

subjected to variations in flow and salinity. As streamflows increased with floods, the salinity of

the Delta migrated westward towards the Pacific Ocean. As streamflows decreased in the

summer months, salinity would migrate up the rivers past Suisan Bay and into the heart of the

Delta (Jackson and Paterson 1977).

4

Vegetation was largely dominated by tules which could handle the variations between fresh and

brackish waters. Higher ground featured grasses and native trees such as willows, oaks, and

sycamores. The Delta (and the entire Central Valley) was inhabited by large mammals such as

elk, deer, antelope, and grizzly bears. The Delta was also home to one of the largest Salmon

runs in the Americas (Thompson 1957). Life was well adapted to the unique aquatic ecosystem

and thrived with variability.

A New Delta

In the early 20th century, the environment of the

Delta began to change rapidly. To reclaim

fertile soils for agriculture, thousands of miles

dikes and levees were constructed. Rather than

allow the fertility of flooding to sweep the area,

deep channels were built to push excess water

to the sea as fast as possible. To improve

shipping inland and provide soil for levees,

canals were dredged. Upstream, water

diversions significantly increased for agricultural

activities throughout the Central Valley, thus

decreasing the freshwater flow into the Delta

(Jackson and Paterson 1977). Major diversions

from the Delta began in the late 1940s with the construction of the Delta Mendota Canal, part of

the much larger Central Valley Project (CVP). This was further expanded in the 1960’s with the

implementation of the State Water Project (SWP) (Delta Stewardship Council 2012). Today, state

policy is to maintain the Delta as a freshwater system through the myriad of civil projects which

Figure 1: The Modern Delta and its location in California (Lund, Hanak et al. 2007)

5

regulates flow (Lund, Hanak et al. 2007). Due to its stagnation and constant flow, the ecosystem

can perhaps be best described as a ‘confused lake.’

The Importance of the Delta

In The Big Lebowski, it is repeatedly stated by the characters ‘A nice rug can really tie a room

together.’ In a similar way, the California Delta ties the state water system together. The Delta

is described as the “linchpin” and political epicenter for water in California (Isenberg, Florian et al.

2008). In California, 75% of precipitation occurs north of the Delta, but 75% of water demands lie

south of the Delta (Hanak, Lund et al. 2011). The Delta is the keystone of water projects that

traverse the entire state, as

highlighted in figure 2.

At the southern end of the Delta

are some of the world’s largest

pumping plants. Delta water is

transported through canals and

aqueducts to cities in the Bay

Area, millions of acres of San

Joaquin Valley farmland and the

urban areas of Southern

California. Two-thirds of the

state’s residents rely on the

Delta for at least a portion of their

drinking water (Lund 2010).

Figure 2: The Bay-Delta Watershed and Major Water Projects. This map highlights how much of California is dependent on water from the Delta (NRDC, 2001). The inclusion of the watershed on the Oregon border is only in the wettest years.

6

Current Problems

Fish stocks and other native species have completely collapsed. The highly artificial environment

of the Delta, with no salinity fluctuations, has allowed invasive species to thrive where native

species struggle. Additionally, upstream dams, reverse river flows, loss of wetlands, and many

other activities have contributed to this ecosystem collapse.

Land subsidence and other problems are reasons for concern for Delta farmers. Some areas of

the Delta are more than 20 feet below sea level (Lund 2010). This occurs as the peat soils are

tilled and oxidized. Subsidence should be a major concern because it increases seepage through

levees, raises the likelihood of levee failures, and increases the costs and consequences of levee

failures. Rather literally, Delta farmers are digging their own graves.

Many forces of nature are working simultaneously against continued habitation in the Delta. This

includes the effects of climate change, which is contributing to more frequent and intense floods,

droughts, and extreme high tides. The fragile 1,100 mile levee system built over the previous 150

years is all that holds back the rising seas.

The most credible threat to California's water delivery system would be an earthquake which

causes a catastrophic levee failure in the Delta. In the next 50 years, there is at least a two-thirds

chance of a catastrophic levee failure in the Delta (Lund, Hanak et al. 2007) . This could lead to

a domino effect of multiple island flooding. Such a situation would continue to pull saline water

inland. Scenarios such as this put the reliability of the entire distribution system at risk. It is

possible that Delta pumps would be unable to withdraw freshwater for many years, rendering

much of the CVP and SWP useless (Brandenburg and Steward 2014). Both the vulnerability and

necessity of the Delta highlight the unsustainability of current processes in the Delta.

7

Past Attempts to Improve the Delta

Many past ideas have been introduced to improve the Delta since its vulnerabilities were first

discovered. For multiple reasons to be discussed, most of these ideas never left the drawing

board. In considerations of brevity, I have only included a study of those which garnered the most

support or had a significant effect on successor ideas.

1930 State Water Plan

In the 1930 State Water Plan, preparers voiced concerns over the invasion of saline water into

the Delta during dry summer months. This water could not be used for irrigation or industry.

Simultaneously, low flows in the summer reduced the viability of navigation to inland ports. The

plan examined proposals for the construction of a salt water barrier in Carquinez Strait, Chipps

Island (near Pittsburg), and one at Point San Pablo (in present day Richmond). These barriers

were very expensive their implementation seemed barely profitable, at best (Hyatt 1930).

Upstream reservoirs could serve the needs of the upper bay area at a fraction of the cost. The

plan concludes that the barriers are not necessary or economically justifiable.

The proposed alternative was to develop Shasta Dam and keep the Sacramento River flow at a

sufficiently high level throughout the summer months to maintain the Delta as a freshwater system

and then pump the freshwater to the cities west of the hydraulic salinity barrier. In their own

words, “In order to control the advance of salinity, a supply of water flowing into the delta must be

provided sufficient in amount, first, to take care of the consumptive use in the delta and, second,

an additional amount flowing into Suisun Bay sufficient to repel the effect of tidal action in

advancing salinity” (Hyatt 1930). Indeed, not much has changed since 1930 with the operational

goals in the Delta.

8

1949 Bureau of Reclamation Peripheral Proposal

In 1949, the first proposal of a water route

around the Delta surfaced from the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation. It was promoted as a

means for diverting high-quality water from

the Sacramento River directly to south Delta

pumps before it had a chance to mix with

lower quality Delta water. Also proposed was

a Folsom-Newman Canal that would divert

water from the American River, and a Hood-

Clay Pump Canal would divert Sacramento

River water in the north Delta to the Folsom-

Newman canal. These would provide

additional irrigation water east of the Delta

and then meet the Delta Mendota Canal south

of the Delta. Figure 3 includes a map of

projects from the original report. These

alternatives were proposed mainly for their energy efficiency compared to South Delta Pumps. It

also allowed additional waters to be diverted in exceptionally wet years. The report calls

construction of the Delta Cross Channel “essential […] to the operation of the Central Valley

Project” because it provides “more effective salinity control than would otherwise be possible”

(Bureau of Reclamation 1949). Ultimately the Bureau failed to garner support from the state

because of opposition from landowners downstream from the canals.

Figure 3: 1949 Reclamation Proposal to improve system reliability (Bureau of Reclamation 1949)

9

1955 Biemond Plan

Figure 4: The Biemond Plan called for fortifying a north-south canal along the east side of the Delta (Division of Resources Planning 1957)

The Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1955 required the Department of Water

Resources to immediately examine ways of decreasing salinity levels in the Delta. Although a

barrier system similar to the 1930 State Water Plan was first proposed, a more cost effective way

forward was developed – the Biemond Plan. The plan proposed to enclose groups of islands

within a master levee system, thereby reducing the mileage of levees requiring reconstruction

and annual maintenance against flood and tidal forces. The interior channels, severed during

construction of the master levee system, could be maintained at nearly constant elevations and

would deliver water to and from the enclosed islands (Division of Resources Planning 1957). This

has been referred to as the “Armored-Island Aqueduct” (Lund, Hanak et al. 2007). Because of

the alterations in the tidal prism, the required flows to keep saline waters out of the Delta were

estimated to be one third of the previously required flows, freeing up additional water for exports

southward. Loss of support for this plan in unknown. Bulletin No. 60 only completed 30% of the

10

study as required by the Abshire-Kelly Salinity Control Barrier Act of 1955 and further evidence

of study could not be located.

1957 California Water Plan and the Trans-Delta System

Perhaps there is no such grandiose collection of serious government proposals for water

distribution than that of the 1957 California Water Plan, which urged massive reservoirs on the

Klamath and Trinity Rivers to be built to irrigate every arable acre of land in the state. All of this

was dependent on the plan’s centerpiece: a collection of projects in the California Delta.

The 1957 California Water Plan expanded on the

findings from the Biemond Plan for the Delta. The

plan calls the implementation of a salt water barrier

and a conveyance system across the Delta “vital”

(Department of Water Resources 1957). Specific

improvements included an isolated channel to cross

the middle of the Delta for flood and salinity control.

A second recommendation was for the “Antioch

Crossing” which would convey water underneath the

west end of the Delta by Siphon. This allowed

additional transfers from a never-built reservoir

(Montezuma) northwest of the Delta to a forebay

south of the Delta. Third, the plan called for the

construction of the Delta Pumping Plants to move the massive amounts of water from Northern

California south. These projects were collective referred to as ‘The Trans-Delta System.’ In the

November 1960 election California voters approved Proposition 1 (the Burns-Porter Act) to

finance initial construction of the State Water Project. The plan did not offer a timeline or

Figure 5: The 1957 California Water Plan is a work of nightmares for current environmentalists (Department of Water Resources 1957)

11

economic considerations. Environmental opposition and fiscal constraint prevented the plan from

being completed.

1960 DWR Bulletin 76

In this publication, DWR discusses four

variations of old alternatives and new

ways of spinning them. The first is a

physical barrier at Chipps Island. One

new alternative is the “The Single

Purpose Delta Water Project” which

would, ironically, serve many purposes.

Control structures would be erected

farther east and less water would be

needed to hold back the salinity gradient

(1000 cfs is estimated). A siphon was even proposed under the San Joaquin river to keep high

quality Sacramento River water completely separate from lower quality waters.

The next rather vaguely titled alternatives were the “Typical Alternative Delta Water Project” and

“Comprehensive Delta Water Project” (Department of Water Resources 1960). These are

through Delta alternatives which ship water across the Delta similar to the Biemond Plan. The

Typical Delta Alternative includes the facilities of the Single Purpose Delta, a cross-Delta canal

which was to be dredged, and fourteen additional channel closures. The Comprehensive Delta

Water Project alternative includes almost all of the above proposals plus “some modifications with

other works.” DWR concludes with its recommendation to advance the Single Purpose Water

Project due to its economic superiority compared to other alternatives. This report seems to be

the first proposal which argues for an “integrated approach” and asks for support from the federal,

state, and local levels. The state begins to recognize it must bring all interests to the table in

Figure 6: A cover page with vague photos for vague proposals (Department of Water Resources 1960)

12

order to successfully complete a project. Loss of support for the plan is unknown, but most likely

no stakeholders offered concessions willingly.

1982 Proposition 9

In 1981, Pat Brown and the Senate passed SB 200

which put a new peripheral canal plan to the voters.

The $11.6 billion price tag shocked fiscal

conservatives. Damaging floods had erased any

memory of drought. In Northern California, the strong

sense environmentalism and suspicion of water

exports led to it be outvoted nine to one. Results by

county available in Figure 7. The Prop garnered 40%

of the vote statewide and changes to the Delta were

dead again (Reisner 1986).

1998 Organization of CALFED

After many years of conflict and worsening conditions, all stakeholders who used the Delta were

finally brought to the same table through CALFED. Because consensus was required to make

decisions governing the Delta, no major changes in water movement through the Delta was

proposed, and CALFED collapsed due to a lack of support in 2006 (Hanak, Lund et al. 2011).

Bay Delta Conservation Plan

The most recent proposal for solving problems in the Delta is the Bay Delta Conservation Plan

(BDCP). Although many of the same alternatives were put forth, the latest proposal for

conveyance are twin tunnels which take Sacramento River water under the Delta to export

facilities south of the Delta. The pillar of the BDCP are the coequal goals of improving water

Figure 7: The split among North and South has never been so pronounced (PPIC)

13

reliability and ecosystem restoration. This proposal is currently in the process of rapid

development and change.

Conclusion

“We have a hope of succeeding if we learn from our past mistakes and pull together to make the

hard choices” - Carl Levin

Nine Recurring Themes on why Delta projects fail to get built

1. Mistrust by citizens, especially by Northern Californians, of expanding water delivery

capabilities

2. Mistrust by environmental groups of water exporters

3. Changing the regimen of the Delta could not be justified financially in the past

4. Lack of appreciation for the ecosystem services from a variable-salinity environment

5. Lack of state leadership to make decisions at the expense of certain groups

6. Lack of clarity or knowledge on the benefits and consequences of proposed projects

7. A belief that short term stopgap solutions can provide sustainability into the future

8. Lack of agreement on what problems are most significant and should be addressed first

9. No stakeholder is willing to offer cooperation first because it decreases the possibility of

the best result

This report contains only a partial list of the proposals put forth to try to find a better way forward

for the Delta. Unfortunately, the exact causes of why some projects did not advance could not

always be determined. Further study could delve further into this topic. In order to ensure a

successful project in the future (such as the Bay Delta Conservation Plan), stakeholders should

review reasons for failure from previous Delta alternatives and ensure the same mistakes are not

repeated.

14

Bibliography Brandenburg, S. and J. Steward (2014, August 28, 2014). "Earthquakes pose a hazard to much of California's fresh water." Los Angeles Times.

Bureau of Reclamation (1949). Central Valley Basin: A Comprehensive Departmental Report on the Development of Water and Related Resources of the Central Valley Basin, and Comments from the State of California and Federal Agencies. Department of the Interior.

Delta Stewardship Council (2012). Final Draft Delta Plan, Sacramento: State of California.

Department of Water Resources (1957). The California Water Plan. Department of Water Resources and Division of Resources Planning.

Department of Water Resources (1960). Bulliten No. 76: Delta Water Facilities. Water Resources. California.

Division of Resources Planning (1957). Interim Report to the California State Legislature on the Salinity Control Barrier Investigation. W. Resources.

Hanak, E., et al. (2011). Managing California's water: from conflict to reconciliation, Public Policy Instit. of CA.

Hyatt, E. (1930). Report to Legislature of 1931 on State Water Plan of 1930. Department of Public Works and Division of Water Resources. California.

Isenberg, P., et al. (2008). "Delta Vision Strategic Plan." State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento.

Jackson, W. T. and A. M. Paterson (1977). "The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: the evolution and implementation of water policy: an historical perspective." University of California Water Resources Center.

Lund, J. R. (2010). Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, University of California Press.

Lund, J. R., et al. (2007). Envisioning futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, Public Policy Institute of California San Francisco.

Reisner, M. (1986). Cadillac Desert. NY, NY, Penguin Books.

15

Thompson, J. (1957). The settlement geography of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California, Dept. of Geography.