I noticed that California’s perennial water politics controversy, the Peripheral Canal, is in the news. It’s actually been on my mind, on and off. The reason is complicated.
Since I came to Korea, some of the aspects of the EFL curricula I have been provided with to teach from that I have most liked have been the various “debate programs.” I think debate is a great way to teach not just language skills, but also to address important, related issues such as critical thinking and general confidence. And when I think about debate, I always think about the debate class I had at Arcata High. It was in 10th or 11th grade, I think. Funny that I don’t remember that. Nor can I recall the teacher’s name. But, what I remember with great clarity and vividness was that the topic I ended up with, back in the beginning of the 80’s, was the Peripheral Canal: to build or not to build? I remember trudging up to the Humboldt State University library repeatedly to study such archana as tracing the lobbying money being spent by the MWD (Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, a semi-private institution despite its name, kind of like the Fed of water politics), and feeling like I was uncovering some scary scandal, like in a movie.
The issue has always been interesting. I view it as the sort of archetype of the typical exceedingly complex environment vs human debate. It has always had sincere environmentalists positioned on both sides. On the one hand, the current extent of ongoing environmental degradation in the California Delta is unsustainable without some major change or human remediation. This has been recognized and essentially uncontroversial for 30 years (i.e. since before I was debating it in high school!). But other people fight the idea of building a canal to help “save” the delta, because the same canal will be able to support even further and faster degradation, unless properly managed for the benefit of the Delta ecosystem instead of simply to slake the ever-growing thirst of California’s cities.
One interesting feature of the current push is that some groups are pushing for an amendment to the California Constitution to make sure that the Delta (meaning its ecosystems) get representation of some kind on the board that oversees the management of any canal that is built. Meanwhile, the governator, with characteristic recklessness, is pushing beginning of actual construction very hard. Wanting it to be part of his legacy. And, arguably, with the economic crisis creating a positive political environment for big public works spending (stimulus!), there’s some brilliant tactics on display there. The canal would be the largest water-related public works project since the California Aqueduct was completed.
Some things have changed. It’s no longer South vs North — Sacramento, lurking right on the eastern edge of the Delta, is thirstier now than L.A. was 30 years ago. And many locals who opposed the canal in years past are now so desperate to see something done to save the Delta that they are more in a mood to compromise. At least, that’s my perception. I still don’t know what the right answer is… I think the Delta is doomed, regardless, at least as it is…. Canal or no canal, rising sea levels (global warming) will push salt water farther and farther inland (people forget that the Delta area between Sacramento and Vallejo is at exactly sea level… and Sacramento is the U.S. city most vulnerable to rising sea levels after only New Orleans, despite being 150 miles inland) unless other steps are taken that dwarf the canal both in terms of ecological impact and cost: some kind of barrier will have to be built, a la Netherlands’ giant seawall, to keep San Francisco Bay from invading the Valley.
Anyway, all of which is to say… as I teach kids debating skills, I think back to that class. I hated the teacher… probably it’s a good thing I don’t remember him. But it was my first real academic-style “research” experience, and it generated what appears to have evolved into lifelong interests in a) the issues of the California Delta, and b) formal debate as a pedagogical method.
