The Delta Protection Commission (DPC) produces reports and proposes policies aimed at protecting, maintaining and restoring the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. It is deeply involved in a statewide debate over Delta restoration that includes revival of proposals to construct a peripheral canal or other form of conveyance around the Delta, and an $11 billion water bond on the November 2012 ballot. The commission is in the Natural Resources Agency.

The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta is the largest estuary on the Pacific coast of North and South America and is one of the only inverted river deltas in the world. Runoff from several mountain ranges in the Sierra Nevada flows into the Delta, fans out from the Central Valley and heads toward the Pacific Ocean via the San Francisco Bay. The Delta is recognized as an ecological treasure and one of California’s most valuable resources within its water system. It is a unique confluence of the state’s two largest rivers: The Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River, which flow into an inland delta.

The Delta was an open freshwater wetland dotted with small islands prone to regular flooding when farmers began reclaiming the land in the 1850s. Development within the Delta region started when the Swamp and Overflow Land Act transferred ownership of properties from the federal government to California. The Board of Swamp and Overflowed Land Commissioners was created in 1861 and it led reclamation efforts by selling the land to private entities and using the proceeds for reclaiming the swampland. Most of the land was in private hands by 1871 and developers, primarily using Chinese labor, began to build levees in an attempt to protect the Delta from tides and overflow. Initially the levees worked, but then faltered under the Delta’s peat soils. 

In addition to levee failures, the Delta began to experience other problems, such as water shortages and the degradation of marine life. The compression of land from the Delta “islands” began to have an indirect affect on water flow, the population of aquatic animals and water reliability. The presence of these islands also raised the water’s salinity. Increased land compression leaves many levee systems in the area prone to failure during an earthquake or flood; which, in turn, would disrupt California’s water supply for months or even years.

Water supply operations have reversed the natural flow of the rivers streaming out of the Delta. As a result, certain species of fish, such as the Delta smelt and striped bass, are on the verge of extinction.

Climate change is yet another factor that complicates efforts to protect the Delta, and according to The Nature Conservancy, “Sea-level rise is pushing more saltwater into the Delta and adding pressure to its fragile levees.” 

A series of levees, now totaling 1,100 miles, created new waterways and are counted on for protection by the larger islands. The Delta’s 738,000 acres of land are home to 750 animal and plant species, some threatened or endangered. More than 1,800 agricultural users draw water from the Delta to grow $500 million worth of corn, grain, hay, sugar beets, alfalfa, pasture, tomatoes, asparagus, safflower, and fruit. Around 12 million people a year partake of recreational activities there. It has 300 marinas, 57,000 navigable waterways and 20 species of sport fish. And it is the largest source of fresh water for agriculture and drinking throughout the state, including large and thirsty populations in Los Angeles and San Diego.

The Delta is divided into two zones: primary and secondary. The former contains 60 islands spread out across 500,000 acres, which cannot be developed. The secondary zone is home to Stockton and several other growing urban areas with half a million people.

After decades of competing demands on the ecosystem, the Delta is suffering. Runoff from agriculture and industry has polluted the water. Invasive, non-native species have disrupted the food chain. An aging system of levees threatens to inundate the Delta with salt water and flood communities. Demands from the south for water exacerbate a host of problems. And global warming looms.

Conflicts between stakeholders in the region have continued unabated for a century. In 1982, California voters defeated a controversial ballot initiative that would have diverted water around the Delta along what is commonly referred to as the Peripheral Canal before sending it south.

In September 1992, Governor Pete Wilson signed into law SB 1866—the Johnston-Baker-Andal-Boatwright Delta Protection Act or simply Delta Protection Act. The Act declared the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta a natural resource of statewide, national and international significance, mandating the designation of a primary and secondary zone. It created the Delta Protection Commission and ordered that a Land Use and Resource Management Plan be written for the primary zone. The Act set policy to recognize, preserve and protect the irreplaceable resource of the Delta for the use and enjoyment of current and future generations.

The Land Use and Resource Management Plan was adopted by the commission in 1995, and revised in 2002 and 2010. Revisions take into account new research, such as that on climate change and population growth. The plan mandated by the Delta Protection Act is limited to land use, not water use or water quality.

On a dual track, California and the federal government created the CalFed Bay-Delta Program in 1994 to mediate conflicts between farmers, urban dwellers, utilities, industrialists, environmentalists and the state. It grew during the Clinton administration to be an amalgamation of 25 local, state and federal agencies, and other organizations but waned during the Bush years. Its funding was inconsistent, its powers were limited and its bureaucracy was cumbersome. CalFed produced a 30-year plan for the delta in 2000, but was largely considered ineffective.

The Legislature created the Bay-Delta Authority in 2002 to oversee CalFed, but it stopped meeting after a few years.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger created the Delta Vision Blue-Ribbon Task Force in 2006—the first year of a drought that wasn’t officially declared over for five years—and it produced a strategic plan largely adopted by the Legislature in the Delta Reform Act of 2009. The Act set mandatory urban water conservation targets, establishing a new Delta Stewardship Council and a Delta Conservancy, and requiring groundwater monitoring. It also reduced the number of Delta Protection Commission members from 23 to 15.

The commission was given the task of developing an Economic Sustainability Plan for the Delta Stewardship Council as the state crafts its planning documents for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) and ultimately decides if it wants to end a decades-old battle over whether to build an “isolated conveyance” to skirt the delta.

The 2009 Act had established co-equal goals of restoring the ecosystem and achieving water supply reliability and also set November 2010 as the date for a public vote on an $11.1 billion general obligation bond to pay for it all. But in August, a deteriorating economy, bad poll numbers and a worried Governor Schwarzenegger compelled the Legislature to pull the bond measure from the ballot and delay it until November 2012.

Drafts of the sustainability plan were released during 2011 and the commission gave final approval in January 2012. It favored strengthening the levees over building a peripheral canal. The commission said it agreed with other reports that found that “improving Delta levees had higher economic benefits and lower total costs than strategies that include a peripheral canal.”  It also opposed proposals to create a 65,000-acre tidal marsh because of its $2 billion price tag, dubious value and potential threat to the Delta itself.

The plan was finalized as part of a larger release of planning drafts for the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).

A peer review group selected and funded by the commission had strong concerns about the report. “The Sustainability Plan proposes that the levee system can be relied upon to achieve a reliable water supply and that upgrading this system would improve the reliability of the water supply. This premise is not supported.”

The current plan for a peripheral canal proposal is supported by Governor Jerry Brown and is in early drafts of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).

The battle continues.

The Commission (DPC website)

About The Delta (Restore the Delta)

Sacrament-San Joaquin Delta Reform Act (The Bay Institute)

Economic Sustainability Plan (DPC website) (pdf)

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy Overview (Department of Water Resources) (pdf)

Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Wikipedia)

Delta Subsidence in California (Geology.com)

California Legislature Passes New Delta and Water Policy Legislation (Somach Simmons & Dunn)

Experts Call for Major Reforms in California Waste Management (UC Davis)

Verging on a Solution to California’s Water Woes (The Nature Conservancy)

The Delta: A Water Source for Most Californians (The Nature Conservancy)

Delaying the $11 Billion Water Bond: What Does It Mean for the Delta? (by Daniel Kelly, Somach Simmons & Dunn law firm)

California Drought Officially Ends (by Don Thompson, Associated Press)

Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta Protection Commission)

Independent Panel Review of the Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (by Richard M. Adams, Janie M. Chermak, Robert Gilbert, Thomas Harris and William F. Marcuson III, Delta Science Program)

Science Documents for Bay-Delta Restoration Released for Public Review, Comment (Natural Resources Agency)

The Delta Protection Commission is charged with guiding and planning for the use of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Delta, an area that is home to more than half a million Californians, hundreds of species of birds, dozens of species of fish and mammals, and many invasive plants and animals. The Delta region covers parts of the cities of Sacramento, West Sacramento, Stockton, Oakley and Rio Vista.

Much like the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Conservancy and the Delta Stewardship Council, the commission’s role was redefined by the 2009 Delta Reform Act. Each agency has a specific and interrelated mission: The Delta Protection Commission is called on to create balance and order in the conservation and development of Delta land resources and the Delta Stewardship Council is tasked with implementing a long-term Delta plan that guarantees reliable water supply and  ecosystem restoration goals. Each agency shares vital information and policies and programs, so that their work does not overlap; functioning in collaboration with local governments.    

To this end, the commission is responsible for the Land Use and Resource Management Plan, which sets policy and findings and makes recommendations for use of the primary zone of the Delta, a 500,000-acre expanse that does not fall under any specific local government or urban area. Population growth, land use, utilities, infrastructure, agriculture, water, recreation, access, levees, marine patrol, boater education and safety, and new studies affecting the environment are all addressed in the Plan. Each January 1^st, the commission submits a report to the governor and Legislature describing progress made in meeting the goals of the original Act and the Plan, which is revised every five years.

The commission has no authority over state or federal agencies or programs. Local governments must submit amendments to their general plans for the Delta within 180 days of amendments to the Plan adopted by the commission. In this way, the resource management plans and goals for all interested groups are kept updated and in alignment. The commission also prepared an economic sustainability plan in 2011. The commission does not plan for the secondary zone of the Delta.

The area is the West Coast’s largest estuary and the commission works to reconcile the interests of many groups. Of the initial designation of 738,000 acres of Delta, 425,700 acres is currently used for irrigated agriculture, in the hands of over 1,800 users and yielding $2 billion in crops. Another 64,000 acres is home to urban and commercial development, including hundreds of shoreline recreational areas and marinas that service half a million voters and 12 million visitors annually. There is also 61,000 acres of open water. The Delta contains over a thousand miles of levees and provides drinking water for 25 million people. A map of the primary and secondary zones is online.

The commission has 15 members, representing the three areas of interest in the Delta: agriculture, habitat and recreation. Commissioners include: five area county supervisors;  three area city council members; three members from water district boards; and high level leaders from the following: Natural Resources Agency, Department of Food and Agriculture; State Lands Commission; Business, Transportation and Housing Agency.

The commission meets every other month and minutes are archived online. Six standing select committees (Agriculture and Levees, Economic Sustainability Plan, Executive, Legislation, Personnel Recruitment, and Primary Zone Study) carry on much of the work. In addition, commission members sit on the Delta Conservancy, the Delta Long-Term Management Strategy for Dredging Committee, and the California Aquatic Invasive Species Management Team.

Delta Facts (DPC website) (pdf)

The Commission (DPC website)

New Commission Member Composition (California Legislative Information) 

The commission has a budget of $1.3 million, which comes largely from the California Environmental License Plate Fund ($1 million) and the Harbors and Watercraft Revolving Fund. Salaries and benefits consume nearly $700,000, and operating expenses use the rest.

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Commission Authority

The Delta Protection Commission was given no real authority to enforce its policies or guidelines, but after 15 years, it managed to enforce the Delta Protection Act in 2007 by stopping a housing development in the Central Valley. The development would have built 162 homes on a 105-acre old industrial plot near Clarksburg, a town on the Sacramento River. In a seven-hour hearing, the commission ruled against building the homes.

The commission fulfilled “its role as an appeal body when an action taken by a local entity on a development project in the Primary Zone of the Delta is appealed to the Commission by a third party.” The third parties in this case were the Concerned Citizens of Clarksburg and Earth Justice, on behalf of the NRDC. The commission had jurisdiction by law, because the proposed development was in the Delta’s primary zone. The Clarksburg Sugar Mill project (so-named after the last occupant of the industrial tract) was the first time the commission had flexed its legal muscles.

Clarksburg Sugar Mill Reports (DPC website)

Economic Sustainability Plan: Flawed Polemic or Sensible Guide?

The Economic Sustainability Plan produced by the Delta Protection Commission in 2011 was meant to assess the long-term economic condition of the Delta’s agriculture, recreation, towns, flora and fauna, and determine the future impact of state water policy. Much information was analyzed when putting the report together, some of it subcontracted through other agencies.

Professor David Sunding of UC Berkeley contributed to the report, but was “dismayed” to find himself labeled a Key Contributor on the Administrative Draft of the report. Why?  The draft “contains important misstatements about my research.” He labeled parts of it as speculative, false and alarmist, and said he was “disappointed by the polemical tone of the Administrative Draft, which is inappropriate in a research document,” to such an extreme that if he’d been “given the chance to review the document prior to its release,” he would have insisted that his name be removed.

Mike Machado, the executive director of the commission responded. “Dr. Sunding’s criticism of the first draft, which, ironically, relies on and includes his own research, is unprofessional, unfair, and unwarranted.” Both Sunding’s and Machado’s letters were addressed to John Laird of the California Natural Resources Agency.

Letter from David Sunding to John Laird, California Natural Resources Agency (pdf)

Machado Strikes Back (Alex Breitler’s Environmental Blog, eSanJoaquin.com)

Independent Panel Review of the Economic Sustainability Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta Science Program) (pdf)

Two bills were under consideration by the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife in 2012: AB 550 was defeated in a January 2012 vote of the committee. It would have prohibited the construction of a peripheral canal in the Delta unless explicitly authorized by the Legislature, and only after a full fiscal analysis. Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, who introduced it, may submit a similar bill in the next session.

AB 2421, proposed by Bill Berryhill, would require the Legislative Analyst’s Office to conduct an economic feasibility analysis prior to enacting a statue authorizing the construction of a peripheral canal on the Delta.

Huber’s Delta Protection Bill Fails in Committee (by Dan Bacher, Indymedia) 

Peripheral Canal

The idea of a peripheral canal on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to bring more water to corporate agribusiness or even Southern California has been brought up for years, as far back as the 1940s, and a proposal to build such a canal even appeared on the ballot in the 1980s (it was defeated). Most recently, a canal was proposed as a way to restore the Delta ecosystems and fulfill water needs in the state. Not all parties—not even all conservationists—agree that a canal would solve any problems.

It’s a divisive proposition that pits North against South; enrages some environmentalists; scares some fiscal conservatives; entices water agencies, agribusiness and thirsty Californians; and confuses many.

The current plan for a peripheral canal proposal is supported by Governor Jerry Brown and is part of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP).

The Delta Debate: Resurrecting the Canal (by Matt Weiser, Sacramento Bee)

Build the Canal

Supporters say a canal would benefit the Delta ecology. Presently water is drawn from the Sacramento River and funneled through the Delta to pumps. This disrupts normal water flow, threatens native fish and wreaks general havoc upon the ecosystem. By diverting the water from the river to a canal, the Delta would be allowed to return to a more natural state.

Supporters also see the canal as a safeguard against catastrophic failure by the series of levees that protect the Delta. New studies show that rising sea levels from global warming, the threat of a major earthquake and deterioration of the levee system itself virtually guarantees some kind of disaster by century’s end. Failure of the levees to hold would draw a huge pulse of salt water from the San Francisco Bay, disrupting the flow of fresh water to the south and possibly destroying the Delta ecosystem.

A canal would at least protect the flow of fresh water from the river. The goal, proponents say, isn’t the pumping of more water from the Delta for shipment south. It’s to guarantee a stable, predictable amount of water.

At present, there is no single canal proposal. Some have proposed that the canal be a pipeline. Others envision a 1,000-foot wide unlined canal, or a massive tunnel under the western Delta. Different proposals come with different price tags, benefits and impacts.

Proponents argue it’s a win-win situation for North and South. Agribusiness and environmentalist. Thrifty taxpayer and thirsty consumer. Interest rates are at record lows, so floating a bond issue now to pay for the canal makes financial sense. Projects like this put people to work, stimulate the economy and strengthen the infrastructure.     

The Public Policy Institute of California has long been a booster of the canal, saying that the Delta “poses serious risks to the economies of the Bay Area, Southern California, and the San Joaquin Valley.” How? The Delta is a fragile system. “Sea level rise and earthquakes threaten the weak Delta levees that keep salt water at bay. Since 2007, the collapse of native fish species has led to court-ordered cutbacks of pumping from the southern Delta. The Delta’s physical deterioration will not be delayed by political indecision; the state faces inevitable, fundamental change in this region.”

This paragraph, from the report “California Water”, is followed by a map of the Delta, captioned, “An earthquake could cause salt water to fill the Delta’s low-lying islands and disrupt water supplies.” The text continues: “A peripheral canal is the best approach for addressing both ecosystem and economic risks. Instead of pulling water through the Delta to the pumps (the current system), a peripheral canal (or tunnel) would tap water upstream on the Sacramento River and move it around (or underneath) the Delta to the pumps.” Fewer fish would be caught in pumps, water quality would improve and stabilize.

“Personally, I’d rather discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict [than the canal]. The stakes are lower,” jokes Ben Boychuk in the Sacramento Bee. Still, in spite of valid criticisms, he says it should be built. “We produce half of the nation’s fruits, nuts and vegetables, and we’re the largest dairy state in the country. Those crops and cows don’t water themselves,” he wrote. “Absent a canal, what can the state and local governments do about California’s supply and demand problem?”

Pointing out that farmers consume 80% of the state’s water, Boychuk dismisses conservation as inadequate, and desalination as pricey. “You can’t drink good intentions.”

Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (by Jay Lund, Ellen Hanak, William Fleenor, William Bennett, Richard Howitt, Jeffrey Mount, and Peter Moyle, Public Policy Institute of California)

Head to Head: Should California Build a Delta Water Canal It Rejected in the 1980s? (by Ben Boychuk and Pia Lopez, Sacramento Bee)

Peripheral Canal Is Best Strategy for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Waters, Report Says (by Tami Abdollah, Los Angeles Times)

Surprise: New PPIC Report Promotes Peripheral Canal (by Dan Bacher, Calitics)

Comparing Futures for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Public Policy Institute of California) (pdf)

A Tale of Two Peripheral Canals. Or Is it Three? (by Barry Nelson, Natural Resources Defense Council blog)

Don’t Build the Canal

Opponents of the canal claim it would deteriorate Delta water quality, make for unsustainable agricultural practices near the Delta, violate the Clean Air Act, kill recreation around the Delta and get rid of incentives to fix levees. Instead of constructing an expensive canal, we should be reducing exports of Delta water, rebuilding levees, making state and regional workers implement conservation practices, and letting locals lead the way in land use decisions.

Opponents of the canal see it as a water grab by the South, pure and simple. Talk of environmental benefits is a smokescreen. Once the canal is built, pressure will build to ship more water out of the region. At this point, no one knows how much water would be diverted, how the project would affect the Delta environment, what the impact would be on fish, or what the effect would be on water quality.

The contention that earthquakes threaten the Delta levees is disputed by Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla of Restore the Delta. “Delta levees have never been in better shape because of the improvements made in the last 30 years,” she told Dan Bacher of Calitics. As for keeping fish out of the pumps, “We don’t have proper fish screening of the pumps now—do we really think they would provide proper screening for fish in the six new intakes on the Sacramento River proposed for the canal?”

In a separate article appearing on Indymedia, Bacher quoted Barrigan-Parrilla again: “Restore the Delta maintains that the people of California deserve to know that due process will take place before tax payers and rate payers are asked to spend billions of dollars on a peripheral canal.”

“Delta advocates find it hard to believe that the construction of the canal will lead to any benefits for imperiled species, based on the state and federal government’s abysmal record of protecting fish at the pumps over the past several decades,” wrote Bacher. He claimed that no one could believe the canal was “anything but a water grab for more water from the Delta that will result in dramatically less flows for fish.”

“Delta advocates believe the construction of peripheral canal or tunnel would result in the extinction of Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River chinook salmon, Delta smelt, longfin smelt, green sturgeon, and other imperiled fist species,” wrote Bacher in the Indymedia article.

Barry Nelson of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) wrote, “NRDC has been a long-time opponent of a peripheral canal in the Delta. However, as a result of increasing awareness of sea level rise, subsidence and earthquake risks in the Delta, we’ve moved from the simple position to a more open and nuanced one.” The key, in Nelson’s opinion, is trust. “The problem is that new infrastructure in the Delta could be managed to improve ecosystem health—or to further damage Delta resources. It could be used to restore fisheries, or could serve as the final nail in their coffin.”

Craig W.Anderson of the San Joaquin Farm Bureau Association quotes the Delta Protection Commission’s recent Economic Sustainability Plan when criticizing the proposed canal, which he says “would cause economic disaster for agriculture and businesses in the Delta and around San Joaquin County.”

“The report says, ‘if operated as proposed in the draft BDCP, isolated conveyance would decrease Delta agricultural production by about $50 million [annually] and would have a negative impact on tourism development, and the rural quality of life.’

“And if a large canal or tunnel system was to maximize water supplies diverted southward, ‘south Delta salinity could triple, and agricultural production losses could increase to $200 million [annually],’ notes the report.”

The canal, opponents say, is a political firefight that is overwhelming discussion of preserving a fragile and deteriorating ecosystem amid a community of half a million local residents. 

Surprise: New PPIC Report Promotes Peripheral Canal (by Dan Bacher, Calitics)

Reason #1—Trust (by Barry Nelson, NRDC Switchboard blog)

Canal or Tunnel Would Devastate Local Economy (by Craig W. Anderson, San Joaquin Farm Bureau Federation)

Huber’s Delta Protection Bill Fails in Committee (by Dan Bacher, Indymedia)

Environmental Water Caucus Unveils California Water Solutions (by Dan Bacher, California Progress Report)

California Representatives Slam “Closed Door” Bay-Delta Process (by Dan Bacher, IndyBay)

Tell the Delta Stewardship Council That They Must Protect Funding for Delta Levee Maintenance In The Delta Plan! (Restore the Delta)

Linda Fiack, 2005-2010

Margit Aramburu, 1992-2005. After 12 years heading the commission and 30 years in the field of regional planning and environmental management, Margit Aramburu left to become director of the Natural Resources Institute at the University of the Pacific, where she still teaches part time.