Land below sea level in danger from possible levee collapses

and no, it's not in Louisiana but in Northern California, right about where the Delta Queen first sailed.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/30/MNGR5FVS0O128.DTL

The recent population collapse of native fish in the delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers has prompted a number of scientists to call for a radical re-engineering of the region as the best way to revive its flagging ecosystems....

A large, deep body of water could be created by breaching levees east and north of Antioch, the scientists say. Tidal marshes would ring this brackish bay, with restored wetlands conjoining the upper reaches....

Nature may not provide much time to mull over alternatives. The delta's levees are in miserable shape, and there is no money to fix them, short of funds from a proposed state multibillion-dollar infrastructure bond. Major levee collapses are a particular worry during periods of heavy and extended rainfall -- such as now, when the California coast is being battered by a series of extremely wet subtropical storms.

"In many cases, farming is occurring 20 feet below sea level," said Moyle. "The stresses on the levees are incredible. Once they go, there will be little or no economic incentive to rebuild them. And in a major earthquake, you could see wholesale failure."

Twenty feet below sea level? Don't they realize that good, honest, hardworking taxpayers who live in safe areas like Florida are just going to have to pay for their foolhardiness when it floods?! :sarcasm:

to stand on one of these below sea level delta islands and look up in the air at the ocean going cargo ships passing by on their way to the port of Stockton or Sacramento. The levees are non engineered and consist primarily of organic peat soil which blows away in the summer when it dries out and leaks like a sieve which means that megabucks are spent pumping out the ground water from the root zone of the crops they grow. I'm not sure there is enough money in the world to construct these levees properly. On the other hand, probably only a few hundred people live permanently on the islands so, unlike NO, the direct human cost of levee failure would not be huge unless ALL levees failed at once.

The Sac'to delta is the entryway to one of the world's major breadbaskets. If these levees begin to break down due to global warming, it will happen as the mean sea level is rising -- an increase of even a few inches would dramatically increase the pressure on the levee system. If the delta and its river valleys were to be inundated with salt water, it would take a long time for that agricultural land to be reclaimed; it would be lost just at the time it was needed most.

Restoration and re-engineering, as some of the experts cited advise, may be difficult to "sell", but after the first few levee collapses, it should become quite easy, although much more expensive than if work was begun now. And a second problem could be solved, or at least ameliorated -- the dependence of the southern part of the state on water from the North and via the Colorado River, each source of which is threatened by climate change, would be greatly eased. The political rifts caused by water diversion from the North, which have worked to the advantage of the Republican Party, would also be stand a chance of being healed.

Speaking of which, has Der Gropenführer included any money for this in his $25 billion bond issue?

--p!

and the Sierra to sustain a high level of production in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys even if the entire delta turned brackish. It would be the residential, commercial and ag users south of the Tehachapis (LA, Orange, San Diego, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) who would suffer. Of course that is where the votes are so I'm sure the north state would get fucked as usual. Problem is the cost of repairing and maintaining these levees approaches the national debt and no AFAIK no money for delta levees is included in the bond issue.

The north half sends water south, the south half sends money north.

No CA rant.

More than 80% of the water that heads south is used by mega-agri businesses in the San Joaquin Valley. The large newspapers, owned by the same major corporations, have been fueling the No/So water feud for 50 years.

Agricultural water users are subsidized and have no incentive to conserve, so there will be no change until the farms have to pay a fair share of the water bill.

Please explain? :hi:

"And a second problem could be solved, or at least ameliorated -- the dependence of the southern part of the state on water from the North and via the Colorado River, each source of which is threatened by climate change, would be greatly eased. The political rifts caused by water diversion from the North, which have worked to the advantage of the Republican Party, would also be stand a chance of being healed."

just east of antioch ...I used to live in Brentwood. We still take the old levy
road to get over to 5 sometimes .