Wiliam R. Gianelli
Gianelli (left) shakes hands with Governor Ronald Reagan at the Lake Perris dedication, signifying the completion of the SWP's southernmost facility.

What I See is in Store for the Future of the SWP

by William R. Gianelli
DWR Director, 1967-73

William R. Gianelli served more than 30 years in a distinguished engineer career in public service, both in State and federal governments. He was appointed in 1967 to head DWR and oversee the building of the California State Water Project. Then from 1981 84, Mr. Gianelli was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. Since 1984, he has been a private consultant in water resources. This article reflects Mr. Gianelli’s views of key developments and future options of the SWP.

When I left the DWR Director position in 1973 following the completion of the first phases of the SWP construction, we recognized that project features would have to be added from time to time if the Department was to deliver the amounts of water called for in its contracts with its 31 (now 29) contracting entities. As I recall, our studies indicated the Department would be approximately 800,000 acre-feet short of meeting its 4.2 million acre-feet contract amount obligations.

In order to meet that shortfall the Department was looking at the possibility of constructing additional storage on California’s North Coast or additional offstream storage north or south of the Delta. It was also clear that some sort of a Delta transfer facility would be needed to reach the SWP Delta Pumping Plant.

What has happened in the intervening 27 years?

First of all, the Department estimated shortfall is probably at least twice the 800,000 acre-feet originally envisioned due to additional environmental constraints, fishery demands, and the provisions of the Endangered Species acts, none of which were in existence when the SWP was formulated.

The rivers of the North Coast have been declared to be Wild and Scenic Rivers, thereby essentially placing them out-of-bounds for SWP augmentations. After years of study DWR Director Bill Warne in 1966, under the authority granted to the Director under the Burns-Porter Act, designated and authorized the Peripheral Canal as the Delta Water Facility described under the Act. Both the subsequent Ronald Reagan and Jerry Brown administrations, and their DWR directors, endorsed this authorization.

In 1982, funding for the canal was included in a multi-billion package of water projects. This legislation was rejected by the State electorate. An argument still exists as to whether the vote signalled nonsupport for the canal or whether the multi-billion package was too expensive for the electorate to approve. In the meantime, borrow (earth) from the Peripheral Canal’s right-of-way was utilized to construct Interstate Highway 5 between Stockton and Sacramento under an agreement I entered into with the Director of Caltrans. Thus, part of the canal has been excavated.

While the Peripheral Canal has become extremely controversial and may not be constructed as originally envisioned, it is clear to me that either it or some other Delta transfer facility will need to be constructed if the State is going to meet its contractual obligations for supplying water to meet California’s water needs.

In the mid-1990s several State and federal agencies joined together in the CALFED Bay-Delta Program aimed at developing a long-term solution to the problems of the Delta, many of which are unrelated to the problems of water transfer by the State and federal water projects. Thus far, the CALFED process seems to have spent more time addressing the ecosystem problems of the Delta than it has on the need for solutions to protect the water supply integrity of the SWP and the CVP.

In the meantime, with population projections of the State now estimated to reach 40 million people by 2010, and the majority of the growth occurring in the semi arid central and southern portions of the State, it becomes imperative that a reliable source of water be secured for these areas in the near future.

The State Water Project can provide for much of this growth if the Department, aggressively supported by the State administration, is allowed to do those things which are necessary to protect the water supply and financial integrity of the Project, as envisioned when the Burns-Porter Act was passed 40 years ago.