New reservoir in Northern California?

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

https://www.circleofblue.org/2015/world/sites-reservoir-in-northern-california-is-20th-century-idea-trying-to-fit-the-21st/

Near Maxwell, CA.

[Darian]

Bill, I'm surprised that you posted this, given your past posts about dams. :confused::confused: Even tho the article was written in 2015, it still has some interesting info in it. The discussion about considering other alternatives was enlightening. I wonder how it would be written in the present, non-drought year??

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

Yes Darian, I don't like dams and am glad they are finally taking some down in our lifetime.

[Mr T]

I do not count myself a fan of dams in general, but imo sites is a pragmatic solution to a major water problem in the state.

[Darian]

Mr T,.... IMO Sites might be a solution. Not sure I understand how Sites would be a pragmatic solution, however.... I guess the small number of people to be moved is a positive but these ranchers are, apparently, cattle ranchers and the property to be acquired would probably include compensation for the cattle as well as the land. Not cheap. So, would you please expand on you statement?? Overall, I see the project as a major expenditure, a dam is still required, lots of plumbing involved (similar to San Luis Rsvr).

[OceanSunfish]

I do not have the time to get into the details, but do you know if the depth of the Sites waterway will be deep enough to release cool water back into the river when conveyance is necessary?

You probably can tell I'm not a big fan of the warm water released from Theramalito Afterbay. Moot now since the State closed the Springer season the Feather for reasons we all can read into, etc.

[Darian]

The proposed maximum depth of Sites is shown as 310'. The connection to the Sacramento River would be a pipeline to the river. I suppose if the water is cool in the reservoir, it would be cool on release???.... This design appears similar (not same) to San Luis Reservoir.

Lots of investors involved. Two of which are the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and LA Metro Water District (LAMWD). With the re-initiation of discussions between BOR and the state concerning CVP/SWP operations, can anyone say what will happen here (if anything)?? Does anyone have any doubts about what LAMWD wants???

[Mr T]

Darian,

I believe that the state needs to perform some kind of activity to address the issue of water shortages, I've lived in the valley my entire life and while the number of people has gone way up, the amount of water has not.

I am open to all options, but fail to see many viable ones.

Do I think this is a water grab? Of course it is. Water is gold in this state.

Will it work? Who knows for sure? If we don't get the rain, then all bets are off.

Will it go to SoCal? Likely yes. Whats' new here? Nor Cal has been the pipe for SoCal for decades. That will never stop.

Is it going to cost a bunch of money to build a dam? Of course. It's government and whatever they do will have cost overruns that will cross my eyes, function at less than designed spec, and take 3 times as long to build as a private project.

Will politicians load the whole thing with pork for their districts? That is a given.

Do we have the money to pay for it? No, but that's never stopped government.

Can I really make a difference? No. My single vote and voice matters not a whit to the political machine. Its all about money and I don't have nearly enough to even be white noise here.

From what I have been told, a majority of the water in the state is already owned by someone. This is not great.




Like I said i don't like it, but reality tells me we have to get more water somewhere.

[beachjumper1]

there is only a finite amount of water and land,the real problem is too many people. Maybe living in Ca. should be like climbing Mt Whitney enter the lottery. If unlimited growth is continued the park will be over run. remember the Owens Valley.

[John H]

The problem is not the number of people in California it is the irrigated agricultural acreage. We have all seen the 80/20water use split between ag and urban. The big water use is in the fields not in the cities. How many non irrigated properties have you seen converted to irrigated grapes or almonds in the last 30 years? That is all new ag water use. If you buy non irrigated rolling hills and invest in developing it for almonds or grapes you have created an asset with a long term income stream that is far more valuable than the non irrigated grazing land you bought. It is not “farmers” doing this. It is wealthy investors and venture capitalists. IMHO we don’t have the water to irrigate every acre in California that would be profitable if irrigated. Ag development will take every drop if there is a dollar to be made and the State cooperates because they like the increased tax revenue. Enough ranting. Sorry.

[OceanSunfish]

The problem is not the number of people in California it is the irrigated agricultural acreage. We have all seen the 80/20water use split between ag and urban. The big water use is in the fields not in the cities. How many non irrigated properties have you seen converted to irrigated grapes or almonds in the last 30 years? That is all new ag water use. If you buy non irrigated rolling hills and invest in developing it for almonds or grapes you have created an asset with a long term income stream that is far more valuable than the non irrigated grazing land you bought. It is not “farmers” doing this. It is wealthy investors and venture capitalists. IMHO we don’t have the water to irrigate every acre in California that would be profitable if irrigated. Ag development will take every drop if there is a dollar to be made and the State cooperates because they like the increased tax revenue. Enough ranting. Sorry.

Very well stated............. Age old issues. Capitalism, but without the INTEGRITY

[Darian]

Here's some info taken from Wikipedia (so take it for what it's worth) about Sites Reservoir"

"Potential environmental impacts:
Unlike other proposed reservoir projects in California, Sites would not directly affect fish migration because it is not located on a major river. In addition, if water for irrigation and Delta salinity control were provided from Sites, additional cold water could be retained in Shasta Lake for fall-run chinook and coho salmon.[14]

However, diversions could take more than 60 percent of the Sacramento River's flow at certain times, potentially harming salmon and other fish species. The reservoir itself would affect habitat for 23 sensitive, threatened or endangered wildlife species.[13] Due to the low elevation and relatively dry climate of the reservoir area, about 30,000 acre feet (37,000,000 m3) of water would be lost to evaporation each year.[13]

The project would be operated in the interest of protecting fisheries, with such installations proposed as advanced fish screens at the pumping stations along the Sacramento River; potential modifications to upstream Shasta Dam to increase the supply of cold water available there; and modifications to the existing Tehama-Colusa and Glenn-Colusa Canal intakes that would be used by the project.[1]"

I didn't include copies of the referenced footnotes.... Now, if you want to compare to another new proposed reservoir project Google Temperance Flat Dam. That proposal is truly destructive but is scheduled to begin construction in 2021.

[Fishtopher]

Sites Reservoir is exactly the type of reservoir California needs for extra water storage. It is offstream so no fish passage issues, the creeks that are being dammed are barely perennial meaning no real runoff, it is fairly far downstream on the Sacramento meaning it can capture flood events during the winter and spring, and the valley it is being built in is fairly narrow meaning less evaporation. The Tehama-Colusa and Glenn-Colusa Canals already divert a good portion of the Sacramento River most of the irrigation season. Diverting this water in the winter will possibly leave more water in the mainstem Sacramento for fish and delta issues. If we are going to build a dam, this is the type that makes the most sense. I'd much rather have this dam than raise Shasta or build Temperance Flat.

[JasonB]

Sites Reservoir is exactly the type of reservoir California needs for extra water storage. It is offstream so no fish passage issues, the creeks that are being dammed are barely perennial meaning no real runoff, it is fairly far downstream on the Sacramento meaning it can capture flood events during the winter and spring, and the valley it is being built in is fairly narrow meaning less evaporation. The Tehama-Colusa and Glenn-Colusa Canals already divert a good portion of the Sacramento River most of the irrigation season. Diverting this water in the winter will possibly leave more water in the mainstem Sacramento for fish and delta issues. If we are going to build a dam, this is the type that makes the most sense. I'd much rather have this dam than raise Shasta or build Temperance Flat.

I think you make some valid points; though I don’t know nearly enough of the nitty gritty details about what real world impacts this dam would create, I’m certainly more concerned at the moment with the other two options mentioned. I’m still not exactly sold on this one either, though I’m open to the idea we will likely build more dams whether I like it or not, so it makes sense to choose wisely.

I think we really need to take a hard look at the long range outlook though:
If the states population continues to grow (a given), and we make no substantial changes to our water usage and conservation, eventually we will run out of rivers to dam. Dams have numerous negative issues with them, including the basic issue that by design they are extremely inefficient in terms of actual usable storage potential. Groundwater offers a lot more potential, at substantially lower costs, has positive environmental impacts, etc etc. In my opinion we really should be moving much more in that direction.

Even better still would be to seriously rethink our own usage, from domestic water usage to agricultural. There’s a lot of water we could supply by cutting some of the wasteful use. If we only consider addressing our water concerns from the supply side, rather than the demand side as well, then we are dealing with substantially bigger problems. I mention all this because it seems to me that most discussion about the water needs for our state eventually boil down to building more and more dams, which is a mentality that worked ...for a while, when we had a lot more miles of river and a LOT LESS people! I think we outgrew that model decades ago, but we’ve been very slow to adapt to the new realities we face going forward. I think we need to address our water needs from every possible angle, from conservation, recycled uses, storage, and delivery.

JB

[OceanSunfish]

I think you make some valid points; though I don’t know nearly enough of the nitty gritty details about what real world impacts this dam would create, I’m certainly more concerned at the moment with the other two options mentioned. I’m still not exactly sold on this one either, though I’m open to the idea we will likely build more dams whether I like it or not, so it makes sense to choose wisely.

I think we really need to take a hard look at the long range outlook though:
If the states population continues to grow (a given), and we make no substantial changes to our water usage and conservation, eventually we will run out of rivers to dam. Dams have numerous negative issues with them, including the basic issue that by design they are extremely inefficient in terms of actual usable storage potential. Groundwater offers a lot more potential, at substantially lower costs, has positive environmental impacts, etc etc. In my opinion we really should be moving much more in that direction.

Even better still would be to seriously rethink our own usage, from domestic water usage to agricultural. There’s a lot of water we could supply by cutting some of the wasteful use. If we only consider addressing our water concerns from the supply side, rather than the demand side as well, then we are dealing with substantially bigger problems. I mention all this because it seems to me that most discussion about the water needs for our state eventually boil down to building more and more dams, which is a mentality that worked ...for a while, when we had a lot more miles of river and a LOT LESS people! I think we outgrew that model decades ago, but we’ve been very slow to adapt to the new realities we face going forward. I think we need to address our water needs from every possible angle, from conservation, recycled uses, storage, and delivery.

JB

Very noble and sensible. Requires integrity. As you know already, this is the "wild wild west" and the "elite" (will not name names....) of the world can buy favorable legislation in the name of the free enterprise, capitalism, and the "american way".

Read John H.'s post as well.

I hate to be so cynical and un-hopeful for overcoming obstacles with good honest sensible planning, but it's all about money and ego.