Mr. Curlee’s commentary notes that he and California farmers are detecting new trends in California.
Although most farmers prefer farming to politics, they know that the political process affects them directly so they try to keep an eye on it. What they are detecting currently is a noticeable drift, particularly in California.
…
As government-imposed rules proliferate, farmers also wonder if some of them might be imposed by those in the power structure who don’t like the free enterprise system and prefer to replace it with something more liberal (socialistic). But they have learned that expressing that doubt only results in ridicule, often by their own millennial offspring. {my emphasis}
That surprised me, because I am also getting an inkling of a changing of the guard. Mr. Curlee indirectly reports that the children of farmers don’t share their concerns about government policies overriding the free market. I’m also sensing a generational change. I’ve been having a hard time articulating it, which is why I’ve not been writing here.
My sense is that the PeripheralCanalFix2.0 has been occupying CA water policy for ages, by soaking up money, attention and political strategizing. We’re at the beginning of a very big year for TwinEcoRestorePipes, and seeing a full court press from the big boys. It feels very much like a final push of the old water establishment. It may work, I don’t know. But whether it does or not, settling the question of the AroundDeltaWaterGo is probably their last big effort. Getting new federal and state administrations up to speed (pro or con) would be too much work, especially if the next governor doesn’t come in with Jerry Brown’s priorities. With the question of the ZoomSiphonRiverMover settled, more water policy arenas would be less fraught, because participants wouldn’t be simultaneously evaluating whether an outcome is good or bad for the GravityBlastTunnelGulpers.
So Mr. Curlee and I, as ever, are of one mind. It feels like change is coming.
On the public record 
Mr. Curlee couldn’t resist the old hackneyed right wing code words “liberal” and “socialistic”as if they were a plague upon the land. I would cheer loudly if California water policy reforms became more socialistic, because I equate socialism with true democracy and with government that serves the many, not the few with concentrated wealth and purchased political power.
I sincerely love Mr. Curlee’s and Mr. Fitchette’s op-eds. They’re the clearest view I have into that mindset. They aren’t far wrong about my intentions for water policy reform.
Your foundation premise is flawed.Regardless of generation or notions of a change in consciousness land, in particular productive agriculture land that returns a profit, will continue to be valued higher than philosophical notions. The future in plain sight is increased aridity in California, particularly the San Joaquin Valley, and the Colorado River watershed. As such adequate water for increasing competition between unrelenting growth in the human population of California and the Colorado River watershed clearly points to less water than future socio-economic demand in California.
The danger in The Governors ‘Pipe Dream’ is a future Governor and legislature, under duress of a shortfall of the water resource, will increase diversion to the proposed pipes beneath The Delta or, worst case, decide to pressurize the system and, at the extreme, divert the near-entire flow of the Sacramento River to meet human demand. Though all Sacramento diversion schemes are immoral the only scheme that may provide oversight of we the people is a peripheral canal-type conveyance structure as an open channel can not be pressurized and will be open to observation and flow rate measurement.
Never be so foolish as to underestimate the ability and political muscle, regardless of impacts, of the educated human mind to belive humans can control nature without affects to ecosystem services.
Joe , you left out an option that has so far escaped analysis.
Click to access WDIC%20description%205.pdf
The West Delta Intake Concept is brilliant by comparison to the options already studied.
By relocating the intakes to Sherman Island the conveyance could be sized to accommodate the “big gulp / little sip” concept while eliminating the potential for future political manipulation.
The very reasons that make it an acceptable compromise are the impediments to it’s implementation.
Read the link and think about it.
If you pump too much or at the wrong time of year all you get is salt water.
It is no mistake that BDCP and now the Brown administration / DWR have studiously avoided comparing this idea with their favored conveyance.