Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Construction of the State Water Project <br />has never been completed. <br /> <br />The Peripheral Canal is still seen by many <br />as a solution to fish problems in the Delta. <br /> <br />26 CALIFORNIA WATER <br /> <br />pumping project water at the Delta pumping plant. It also allows a <br />substantial portion of the pumping requirement of the California <br />Aqueduct system to be accomplished at night and other times when <br />the cost for power is less expensive and allows diversions from the <br />Delta to be adjusted to coincide with favorable tide conditions.34 <br />The Delta Fish Protective Facility, whose main purpose is to <br />prevent floating debris and fIsh from being carried into the pumps, <br />is built directly across the intake channel from the Delta pumping <br />plant. The entire intake flow to the pumps passes through the pri- <br />mary channel of the Fish Protective Facility. The Delta pumping <br />plant lifts water nearly 250 feet into the California Aqueduct. The <br />South Bay Aqueduct branches away at this point and delivers water <br />to Santa Clara. The remaining water is then carried south 444 miles <br />in the California Aqueduct and delivered to contractors in the <br />Central Valley and southern California. <br />For many years, an isolated facility commonly known as the <br />.peripheral canal" has been proposed as a method of diverting water <br />north ofthe Delta and transporting it around the eastern side of the <br />Delta to facilities south of the Delta. Although the proposal for a <br />peripheral canal was badly defeated in a referendum in 1982, the <br />concept is still under consideration.35 A primary reason that an iso- <br />lated Delta facility is still "alive," if not healthy, is because many water <br />interests, including the Department of Fish and Game, believe that it <br />is environmentally better to transfer water around the Delta than to <br />pull it through the Delta with large pumps. Opposition to a peripheral <br />canal has come mainly from those who believe that an isolated facil- <br />ity could dramatically decrease the amount of water flowing through <br />the Delta and from those who are concerned about maintaining its <br />ecology. This is discussed in greater detail in chapter 4. <br /> <br />34 Delta Water Facilities Bulletin 76, July 1978, page 25. <br />35 Department of Water Resources Bulletin 160-87, page 77. <br />