Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney, and Mike Thompson are introducing a House companion measure today as well.

I will be brief in explaining the reasons I support the bill, which I introduced with Senator Harris. The bill would transfer title to the Contra Costa Canal from the United States to Contra Costa Water District (``District''). The District has fully paid off

the capital debt for constructing the canal, so it is financially reasonable to transfer the 48-mile long canal to it. There is no known opposition to the bill, and several good reasons to support it.

The District would like to convert the existing open earthen canal to a closed pipe at an estimated cost to the district ratepayers of $650 million. The District understandably wants to take title to the facilities to have collateral for issuing bonds to cover the expense of the conversion.

There are a number of good reasons to convert the existing canal to a pipe:

First, 82 people have drowned in the earthen canal despite protective fencing in the 70 years since the Canal began operation. This is about a death per year on average, which would be completely prevented if the canal were converted into a pipe. Tragically, there was another drowning in the canal just last year.

A second reason is water conservation. Drought is always an issue in California, and water is becoming more and more expensive. About 6% of the canal's water is lost through evaporation and seepage. A pipeline would eliminate these losses.

A third reason is avoiding flood risk from the earthen canal. When the canal was built 70 years ago, much of the surrounding land was farming country, but more recently homes have been built around it. These homes are at risk from the types of floods that earthen canals periodically experience.

Finally, the 70-year old canal is nearing the end of its lifespan and needs a major facility upgrade or replacement. Replacement with a pipeline is the best option, for all the reasons set forth above.

Besides the advantages of the bill, there is no known opposition to it. The District has reached an MOU with East Bay Regional Parks District to continue the existing recreational uses of the adjoining parks it manages. In addition, the District has received letters of concurrence from the City Managers of Walnut Creek and Antioch regarding the smaller parks managed by the cities along the route of the existing canal. Like East Bay Regional Parks, these cities agree the bill would preserve the existing recreational uses of the adjoining lands.

The bill would not just transfer title to Contra Costa Canal, but would also authorize the transfer of the Rock Slough intake and fish screen, one of Contra Costa's diversion points from the Delta. This transfer will not affect the applicability of the various biological opinions that apply to the facility. As I understand it, because the bill will not affect the environmental management of the canal, and because the District has paid off its capital debt, the environmental groups NRDC and the Defenders of Wildlife will not oppose the bill.

In summary, this bill has no known opposition and good reasons to support. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act, a bill that will assure the health and safety of the residents of Contra Costa County while also providing for the efficient delivery of water from the Bay Delta to the customers of the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). Senator Harris is joining me in cosponsoring the bill, and I understand that Representatives Mark DeSaulnier, Jerry McNerney, and Mike Thompson are introducing a House companion measure today as well.

I will be brief in explaining the reasons I support the bill, which I introduced with Senator Harris. The bill would transfer title to the Contra Costa Canal from the United States to Contra Costa Water District (``District''). The District has fully paid off

the capital debt for constructing the canal, so it is financially reasonable to transfer the 48-mile long canal to it. There is no known opposition to the bill, and several good reasons to support it.

The District would like to convert the existing open earthen canal to a closed pipe at an estimated cost to the district ratepayers of $650 million. The District understandably wants to take title to the facilities to have collateral for issuing bonds to cover the expense of the conversion.

There are a number of good reasons to convert the existing canal to a pipe:

First, 82 people have drowned in the earthen canal despite protective fencing in the 70 years since the Canal began operation. This is about a death per year on average, which would be completely prevented if the canal were converted into a pipe. Tragically, there was another drowning in the canal just last year.

A second reason is water conservation. Drought is always an issue in California, and water is becoming more and more expensive. About 6% of the canal's water is lost through evaporation and seepage. A pipeline would eliminate these losses.

A third reason is avoiding flood risk from the earthen canal. When the canal was built 70 years ago, much of the surrounding land was farming country, but more recently homes have been built around it. These homes are at risk from the types of floods that earthen canals periodically experience.

Finally, the 70-year old canal is nearing the end of its lifespan and needs a major facility upgrade or replacement. Replacement with a pipeline is the best option, for all the reasons set forth above.

Besides the advantages of the bill, there is no known opposition to it. The District has reached an MOU with East Bay Regional Parks District to continue the existing recreational uses of the adjoining parks it manages. In addition, the District has received letters of concurrence from the City Managers of Walnut Creek and Antioch regarding the smaller parks managed by the cities along the route of the existing canal. Like East Bay Regional Parks, these cities agree the bill would preserve the existing recreational uses of the adjoining lands.

The bill would not just transfer title to Contra Costa Canal, but would also authorize the transfer of the Rock Slough intake and fish screen, one of Contra Costa's diversion points from the Delta. This transfer will not affect the applicability of the various biological opinions that apply to the facility. As I understand it, because the bill will not affect the environmental management of the canal, and because the District has paid off its capital debt, the environmental groups NRDC and the Defenders of Wildlife will not oppose the bill.

In summary, this bill has no known opposition and good reasons to support. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.