Pugh 1
Daniel Pugh
Professor Alexandra Block
Writing 100
2 May 2015
Advocacy Stage Draft 3
In order to stop the stress on the delta and improve ecological conditions that
relate to the habitats of the long fish smelt, The Bay Conservation Plan will need to be
put into affect. The Bay Conservation Delta Plan (BCDP) will marshal water resources to
benefit the longfin smelt and supply us with the necessary water resources. In relationship
to the Bay Conservation Delta Plan there are some concerns, which have been proposed
by leading officials, agriculturalists, and farmers who deem this plan to do more harm
than good. These concerns include, the tunnels being looked upon as being detrimental to
species such as the longfin smelt, taking fertile land away from the “Delta farmland”, and
being such a costly plan to put into action. These issues may come as roadblocks to the
Bay Delta Conservation Plan however, they are not issues that are will not be hard to
overcome. Although the long fin smelt is viewed upon as insignificant to humans, this
species is important to the delta and its environment.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a plan that has been in the process of being
initiated for the past seven years. The primary goal is to “steady the diversions” that we
use to direct water to other places(Bay Delta Conservation Plan 3.4-149). Also, it is
designed to help restore the ecological health of the delta. The plan was proposed by
Governor Jerry Brown in efforts to focus on the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta and give
Pugh 2
us the option to deter the stress placed on the delta ecology. It is said by the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan, that it is projected to take place over the next 50 years. The original
and intended purpose of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan was to advocate for the
conservation of the Delta fish species that are currently at low levels and facing
extinction, however today the plan is more so aimed at a conservation strategy which
looks into the protection, development, and restoring of the natural communities within
the delta and also the habitats of the species which have been vastly affected by the
draining of the delta waters.(Bay Delta Conservation Plan 3.6-1) This plan will conserve
and restore the natural communities native to the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta. Also, it
will establish natural habitats that were not found in places they were before for certain
species living in the delta.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan will cost roughly around 25 billion dollars to
put into action. The plan looks to use “two designed tunnels” both of which will have
the dimensions of 40 feet high and 35 miles long.(Bay Delta Conservation Plan) This
plan is one that is quite big. It will also consist of 34 facilities that will be used to
store the water, 20 plants that will be used to pump the diverted water, 4 plants that
will contribute in generating the pumping of the water to these new diversions, and 5
“hydro-electric” plants that will be responsible for operating the power of this new
plan. It will also consist of roughly 701 miles of “open canals and pumps”.(Bay Delta
Conservation Plan 2) This particular plan will serve 25 million Californians and
roughly around 3 million acres of farmland.(Bay Delta Conservation Plan 3) As
evident from these numbers, one can conclude that not only will the waters be
Pugh 3
diverted and reduce the stress on the delta but it will also meet the needs of
Californians. The Bay Delta Conservation Plan will restore the natural habitats and
communities necessary for the flourishing of the species, such as the longfin smelt,
within the delta. The plan will restore roughly about 84,000 plus “acres of natural
communities”. Within the 84,000 acres which have been targeted 65,000 of the acres
will include “tidal natural communities”. These efforts will be enacted by the
“promotion of connectivity” between habitual areas of low salinity and habitual areas
upstream of fresh-water, and making available the necessary areas that enable the
covered endangered species to spawn effectively. In regards to the preservation of the
longfin smelt however, the main goal of this plan will be to obtain what is expected to
be an anticipated increase in “copepod abundance” and an unplanned benefit to the
extent that suitable food is exported downstream to nurturing areas in the lowsalinity.(Bay Delta Conservation Plan 4) Through these logistics however, one can
assume that the longfin smelt as well as the delta will be offered more opportunity to
thrive than to regress. The affected ecological conditions will provide the longfin
smelt with the necessary ramifications that it needs to spawn accordingly as it once
did. The increased salinity as well as projected water depth and temperature due to
the increase of natural habitats as by this proposed plan lay the groundwork for the
revamping of the longfin smelt to thrive once again. As this plan is thought to usher
in a new era of stress-relieving conditions onto the delta it has encountered opposition
which finds the particular plan to be detrimental to both the delta and the endangered
species, such as, the longfin smelt.
Pugh 4
As the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is one that is deemed as the next plan which
will not only reduce the stress upon the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, there is
opposition which have stated that there is too much harm being done if this plan is put
into action. These particular arguments which are being advocated are as follows. The
Bay Delta Conservation Plan is, the tunnels being looked upon as being detrimental to
species such as the longfin smelt, taking fertile land away from the “Delta farmland”,
and being such a costly plan to put into action.
The Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a multi-faceted plan which focuses on more
than just the reduction of stress on the delta by providing new alternatives to fund the
needs of Californians. The other aspects of the plan include, the restoration of natural
habitats and helping to preserve the ecological conditions which, will help the
endangered species. Though the plan is considered by the pro-choice side on the issue
of alternative plans to divert water and reduce stress, there is conflict from the conside of the debate. One of the biggest debates on this particular plan which has held it
back is the tunnels being looked upon as being detrimental to species such as the
longfin smelt. As stated by Federal Officials reported by SaveSfBay, the project
would ultimately cross some standards or guidelines which were set up for pollution
and ultimately make the conditions of the fish species which have been deemed
endangered. (SaveTheBay)This is one of the major conflicts which is pushing the
release and action date of this projected plan back.
Pugh 5
The main reason why this particular conflict will not be problematic in regards to
the further advancement of putting this plan into order is illustrated by, Bay Delta
Conservation Plan itself, the plan will restore upwards of 84,000 acres of natural
habitats that have been destroyed by the intrusion of human involvement within the
delta. However 65,000 of the intended 84,000 acres will include the tidal natural
habitats. These habitats are the habitats which are ideal for certain fish species such as
the longfin smelt. By restoring these habitats we not only help to restore the delta to a
state of once being but we also improve the ecological conditions. The efforts from
restoring these habitats will work to improve the salinity of the delta, the water depth,
temperature, and ecological conditions. This will be done by uniting the areas which
carry low salinity and the areas which produce freshwater. However, as this conflict
will not be problematic, there are other problems which have contributed to the
delayed efforts of the plan.
Another underlying conflict that has been charged with the regression of the plan
is the taking of fertile land away from the “Delta farmland”. As proposed by the,
Environmental Water Caucaus (EWC), the most fertile of land will be poached from
the delta if this particular plan goes into place.(DailyKos) Through these efforts of
implementing the two canal system which is set to be placed underneath the delta
itself and ran for 45 miles, the land which will be needed to disturbed will result in a
loss of some of the most fertile land. This argument serves as one of the greater points
and harder oppositions that the potential plan has to battle. As this is a very large and
Pugh 6
proposed ideology which sets out to disrupt the basis of the plan, it is one that has the
ability to be disproven.
The proposed argument which states, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is taking
away the most fertile land of the delta farmland, is easily disproven by the Bay Delta
Conservation Plan itself. As stated by the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, the
dewatering of certain marsh areas as well as channelized islands have ultimately led
to a reduction in the delta farmland. In the beginning the farmland consisted of
roughly 380,000 acres of land which was mostly or predominantly owned by the tidal
marshes. By 1980 however, the land had been reduced to 16,000 acres due to the
dewatering of the marshes and plowing the peat soils for farming have led to peat
oxidation losses, soil compaction, and erosion of the islands, resulting in
surface subsidence. The result is that the interiors of many Delta islands have greatly
deteriorated and died off due to the surface subsidence.(Atwater 1980; the Bay Institute
1998) From this factual evidence, one can make the assumption that, if the delta was
already decimated due to the very first intrusions of humans into the delta then what
harm will a conservation plan do to the delta itself when its main goals are to search for
alternative options, restore the ecological habitats of the delta, and restore the species
within the delta. As this has been a combative issue which has been disproven, there is
one last issue which has played a crucial part in the delaying of the immediate action.
Overall however, the biggest issue which is stopping the plan from immediate action
is the cost behind placing it into action. The opposition have listed this particular plan at
a whopping 67 billion dollars as reported by, the California Progress Report. The first of
Pugh 7
the finances include the two peripheral tunnels which are the main focus of the plan
which are looked at to cost 18 billion. The second half of the financing contributing to
the large amount of 67 billion dollars is the overall cost which has to deal with financing.
These numbers are looked at to range between 42 billion and 52 billion as reported by,
the California Progress Report. These logistics may seem to the naked eye as being large
and very costly numbers but they can be disproven and are not insurmountable.
As the Jerry Brown administration responded back to the opposition on just exactly
how much the cost of the plan actually is, there is a drastic drop in cost which not only
proves helpful to our budget but also to other aspects of society. The Brown
administration has the plan listed at a much less lower and achievable price of 25 billion
dollars. The plus side to the numbers as illustrated by the Jerry Brown administration is
that with the plan not being as costly as the opposition has labeled it, it also add on to
the economical side of society. With this implemented plan there would be 177,000
secured jobs which will be created by this plan taking effect. Also, there will be an
increase in the reliability of water which will also help to secure one million jobs. Also,
there would be an 84 billion dollar increase throughout the 50-year span of this
particular project taking effect. Through these logistics, one can infer that the plan will
do more good than harm financially. The plan will not only be less than what people
have charged it to be but it will also help to provide more stability for jobs as well as
adding money to the economy to usher us out of the great depression which we are
currently in.
Pugh 8
The longfin smelt contributes to the ecological health of the delta by the
consumption of plankton and shrimp that can affect the ecology of the delta if they
overpopulate the delta. Without the longfin smelt there would be an overpopulation of the
delta by the plankton and shrimp which the smelt consumes. An overpopulation would
then result in a disruption of the food chain as well as messing up the ecology of the delta
due to overpopulation of plankton which are known bacteria carriers. Without the delta
having safe and clean water it affects multiple species, including us humans. We depend
on the water to drink, bathe with, cook with, perform farm and agriculture for food, as
well as a numerous amount of other needs which are accomplished through clean water.
Just as us humans depend on clean water, so does the longfin smelt. The longfin smelt
needs the water to be clean and be able to meet certain living conditions which then
provides them with the opportunity to spawn and thrive. Without the longfin smelt as
mentioned before it will result in an increase of its prey which can have a adverse effect
on the ecology of the delta.
Works Cited
"Climate Change and Implications." Climate Change and Implications. Bay Delta
Conservation Plan, n.d. Web. 02 May 2015.
<http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_Library/Pub
lic_Draft_BDCP_Appendix_2C__Climate_Change_Implications_and_Assumptions.sflb.ashx>.
"Existing Ecological Conditions." Existing Ecologoical Conditions. Bay
Delta Conservation Plan, n.d. Web. 02 May 2015.
<http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/Libraries/Dynamic_Document_
Library/Public_Draft_BDCP_Chapter_2__Existing_Ecological_Conditions.sflb.ashx>.
Bay Delta Conservation Plan. "Conservation Strategy (Sections 3.1,3.2, and
3.3)." Conservation Strategy (Sections 3.1,3.2, and 3.3). Bay Delta
Conservation Plan, n.d. Web. 02 May 2015.
<http%3A%2F%2Fbaydeltaconservationplan.com%2FLibraries%2FD
ynamic_Document_Library%2FPublic_Draft_BDCP_Chapter_3__Part_1_-_Conservation_Strategy.sflb.ashx>.
Bay Delta Conservation Plan. "Section 3.6." Adaptive Management and Monitoring
Program. Bay Delta Conservation Plan, n.d. Web. 02 May 2015.
<http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/>.
Atwater, B. F., S. C. Conard, I. N. Dowden, C. W. Hedel, R. L. MacDonald, and W.
Savage. 1979. History, Landforms, and Vegetation of the Estuary’s Tidal
Marshes. In T. J. Conomos (ed.), San Francisco Bay: The Urbanized Estuary.
Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco,
CA. Pages 347-385
SaveTheBay. "Bay-Delta Conservation." Save The Bay (San Francisco). SaveTheBay,
n.d. Web. 02 May 2015. <http://www.savesfbay.org/bay-delta-conservation>.