STORYLINE Sacramento State Government issues water issues, legislation wrongdoings etc.

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

1 of 3
close

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

1 of 3
Loading images
Slideshow image Slideshow image Slideshow image

Historically, Sacramento has had the finest-tasting water in the nation. If you grew up in Sacramento you knew the difference right away as soon as you tasted the water in other cities, particularly Los Angeles. Sacramento is the champagne of public drinking water.

The cascading flows from the sacred mountain of Mt. Shasta made their way to Sacramento in a state of purity that left other water districts agog. Along the way, Sacramento fishermen thrived on the striped bass and salmon that called the beautiful Sacramento River home.

Los Angeles was so envious of Sacramento water that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD)–which had to survive on brackish Colorado River diversions–made a play to bring more Sacramento water south. To do it, they backed a plan to build what was called a Peripheral Canal, a 43-mile long, 400-ft.-wide cement ditch which would divert Sacramento water south, around the Delta, to the Clifton Court Forebay below Tracy where it would be pumped south.

Sacramentans, along with almost everyone else in Northern California, were incensed. They saw it as nothing more than another watergrab from the southland, where the Metropolitan Water District was already famous for draining the water from the Owens Valley in one of the most blatant watergrabs of all time.

That Peripheral Canal bill was placed on the ballot in 1982 as Prop 9. Fortunately for the Sacramento area, it went down to defeat by a 2/3 vote–Sacramentans voting to keep their water home while Southern California residents simply balked at the high cost of the project.

The current Water Bill, the one Governor Arnold Scharwzenegger recently asked to be delayed until the 2012 elections, was supposed to fix the Delta’s many problems–aging levees, and a deteriorating ecosystem–and assure Sacramentans and other Delta users a “reliable, sustainable water supply.”

What the backers didn’t tell Sacramentans, however, was that a “reliable water supply” was meant for the entire state! Of course, this meant pumping more Sacramento water south!

So now that the Water Bill will probably be delayed, what will happen to Sacramento water? Actually, Sacramento is in pretty good position to keep a healthy supply of water available for residents if we can somehow clean up toxic chemical and sewage spills into the river. This is currently being debated by a few agencies responsible for clean water.

Sacramentans must also become educated to the trickeries and deceptions used by the water agencies to try to convince them that less water is better. The MWD needs Sacramento water if it is to fuel future economic development of Southern California and that is the key thrust of the California Business Roundtable--the corporate leaders who call the shots in California. Ask Arnold. 

For Sacramentans, the future is still in doubt. A safe, clean water supply for Sacramento depends upon everyone taking an interest in this most important issue.

As philosopher Henry George remarked, "To take water from where it is needed and send it to where it is scarce is simply bad water policy!"

                                                                                                      * * *

BURT WILSON was a media organizer on the successful anti-Peripheral Canal campaign in 1982. He has remained connected to water issues ever since as they pertain to his home town of Sacramento.

 

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

edited on  July 3, 2010 | 6:16 AM
The information in this article, while partially accurate on the history, is woefully dated and lacking in any current information or supportable facts. Currently, two-thirds of the state population relies on water in some form from the Delta--and that means far more people than just "LA". While Sacramento has a generous water right from the rivers, the Delta's water doesn't belong to Sacramento. You seem to be confusing the issues--not certain whether you're being disingenous or if you're just not clear on your geography. Numerous water bonds (addressing levees, ecosystem restoration, water quality, etc.) have been passed since 1982, yet you skip from that year to this with no acknowledgment that anything has happened in between.
1 1
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 9:46 PM
If you learned nothing more than the water agencies are misrepresenting their so-called "co-equal goals"--which are actually mutually exclusive, then I'm happy.
0 0
REPLY
July 3, 2010 | 6:29 AM
Since you didn't actually address that issue, how would your readers "learn"? It is your opinion that the coequal goals are mutually exclusive, but it doesn't appear that the state legislature shares your opinion. Nor do I. My point is that you've oversimplified and skipped over 30 years of water policy history, which makes your article inaccurate and misleading.
0 0
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 12:29 PM
Well, when LA runs out of water, all the people who live there can move to Sacramento - then there will be no need for a peripheral canal - but 6 million new residents will cause all kinds of other problems i suspect.
0 0
REPLY
July 2, 2010 | 9:46 PM
Well said.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background