Summer 2009 hasn't been a picnic in Sacramento. The budget battle has dragged down California's reputation and credit rating, making it more difficult to fund the day-to-day running of the state and even more difficult to fund large infrastructure projects. On top of all this turmoil, a new version of an old water project is quietly being resurrected. It's a new version of the Peripheral Canal, which is essentially a water grab for Californians south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and others believe moving water via canal will help solve water supply issues in Southern and Central California and resolve ecosystem issues in the delta. But this plan would have the same devastating consequences for the delta and San Francisco Bay as the one rejected by the voters in 1982, and would cost billions of dollars more.

The governor is determined to build a new canal, and he believes he has the authority to move ahead without voter approval. His Delta Vision Task Force maintains that the new Peripheral Canal should be set in motion despite the fact they have yet to deal with how to manage or govern the delta. All Californians should be concerned with the plan to build a 50-mile canal that won't generate any new water, a canal that will cost over $10 billion at a time when we are closing parks and laying off classroom teachers.

Of even greater concern, however, is how this process is playing out.

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan Steering Committee was formed without a single in-delta environmental or agriculture representative, and the Capitol Weekly reports "no lawmaker with deep delta roots is on the [legislative] conference committee" - responsible for the legislative water package - "fueling suspicions that the delta is being shortchanged in order to push through a massive construction program."

In fact, the Department of Water Resources is reportedly planning to drill into 16 locations throughout the delta for potential intake sites for the canal without appropriate public review. The Sacramento Bee reported that the sites "would be enormous - at least 1,000 feet wide and 40 miles long - with potential environmental effects that remain unknown."

There is no question the delta is imperiled, with fisheries teetering on collapse. We all agree that we must save the delta and the San Francisco Bay, which form the West Coast's largest estuary. Bringing the delta back from the brink obviously requires more fresh water running through it to the bay. Unfortunately, a new Peripheral Canal would divert fresh water around the delta, reducing water quality and increasing salinity.

Proponents argue a canal is necessary to secure water for 23 million mostly Southern Californians, because water supplies are at risk from flood and earthquake damage to the delta's levees. However, even the Delta Vision Strategic Plan shows that the levees can be reinforced to "class 7- Seismic no-fail" standards for a fraction of the cost of the canal.

There has to be a better way. This just doesn't add up. It's time for our local legislators to stop the Schwarzenegger Canal and instead consider a more comprehensive approach to the state's critical water needs.

JOSEPH GRAY of Palo Alto is a retired Silicon Valley CEO with 32 years experience in the semiconductor industry and enjoys boating in California"s waterways. He wrote this article for the Mercury News.

To read the arcticle on-line click here.