Printable View
Hi there. I've been meaning to get on this board for a while. Figure my first post might as well be about an issue going on with one of our Sierra rivers, the Mokelumne.
There is a plan to turn more of the Moke into toilet flushings and car washings. To learn more about the issue, find out how you can voice your opposition to this plan, read about the alternatives to this plan and, just maybe, make a contribution to help this work you can go to:
www.friendsoftheriver.org/savethemoke
B-
OK,... I'm gonna play Devils Advocate here and give everyone a chance to sell the proposal/request. :)
Read the info provided on the linked website and found:
EBMUD "....in process of tapping into water from the American River that would provide up to 180,000 acre feet of water in 3 out of 10 years."
1. That agreement is probably old news to anyone in this area but highlights the point that if EBMUD doesn't build a higher/replacement dam on the Moke, they might just increase their demand for water from the American River. EBMUD already has water diversion/transfer capability out of Lake Natoma. :confused:
2. Replacement of an existing dam with a higher dam increases storage capacity/availability of water for EBMUD without eliminating river miles required of an entirely new dam in a new area. :)
3. Not sure that the economic value lost from kayakers and fisherman specific to the described area (above Pardee) Reservoir is in excess of the benefit received by expanding capacity of the existing reservoir.... :confused: (Seems like there're a bunch of alternatives, nearby :-| )
4. The Moke already has more dams on it than the Bear and Pardee (....including a number of smaller, power generation dams owned by PG&E). :nod: What are we saving, only to jeopardizing another body of water :?:
I'm not overly happy with the prospect of more or higher dams. However, statewide demand for more water requires us to consider each and every proposal objectively and recognize where it's going to be necessary. Let's face it, if the function(s) of an existing dam can be expanded or are not easily replaceable, there doesn't appear to be much reason (other than emotion) to oppose it. :cool:
Sooo,.... There're many pro's/cons unlisted here. Let's take the opportunity to discuss "save the Moke" (maybe at the expense of the American River) or not. :nod:
They are taking the American River Water out of the Sac, actually... so, it won't lower flows on the American itself, although it means new water coming out of the Delta, which is the end loser no matter where the water comes from. They are building the new diversion below the confluence, specifically so they don't impact the American flows.
The enlarged Pardee would eliminate the year round fishery on the Moke, as it is only open below 49 and this would take Pardee well past 49.
The kayak run is very popular with beginners, I'm told, because it is a pretty mellow stretch of II-III rapids.
This stretch of the Moke might not be your home water and might not be important to you, but it is for some folks.
You have assumed that we actually need more surface storage, something that the gov and lots of others have been calling for. Here is a little light to shed on the calls for new dams... http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/sit...pdf?docID=2181
I work for Friends of the River. I'm the Development Director. I'm also a passionate fly angler. My home waters are the Upper Sac and McCloud, places that have seen their fair share of threats and destruction, some of that in the past, some on-going and some on the horizon. The loss of more of the Moke would sadden me greatly, just as a Nestle bottling plant at the headwaters of the McCloud would sadden me, or another spill in the Upper Sac. I guess it is a kind of river empathy... the kind that makes me support the No On Pebble campaign even though I've never fished in Alaska.
B-
Being a regular patron of the Moke below Camanche Dam for 23 years, I was ultimately disturbed to see 40 workers constructing a conduit under the Moke during the "quiet time" of the river with respect to recreational users in January/February 2008. A "money-maker" was under construction to send more water to the highest bidder...
The Department of Water Resources answers to NO ONE and generates countless dollars to any politician who obtains water for the countless growing population of California who come here for the weather, on the decline, but still good, and the opportunities for employment, currently non-existent, unless it involves WORK, a four letter word not in the vocabulary of most who call the "Golden State" home.
Throughout my life, I have always gauged where a geographic location is "healthy" by the water quality available. When I migrated here 23 years ago, CA was a wonderful place. In the ensuing years, I have seen greed evaporate the reason I chose this state to be my home.
Steelhead, trout, bass, stripers, and shad florished here when I arrived. They are ever increasingly harder to find as greed predominates. Russ Chatham left in the early 90's for the same reason. He went to Montana which he has discovered is being "raped" in a different manner.
Thank God, I'm getting older and soon won't give a damn if I can fish...I shall remain here because of the weather. If I were a young man and loved the outdoors, I would vacate this God forsaken political hell and go someplace pristine. Problem is, as greed dominates, there no longer is anyplace "pristine"!
Madoff shouldn't go to jail- he should become the Governor of California and "finish off" the state. He truly exemplifies the greed of the "wannabes" who are leading our state to ultimate destruction.
Sure hope I "inflame" someone...unfortunately, it will be some conscientious bastard, like myself who is powerless because he/she works instead of 'scams' to advance themself in life.
Bjorn,.... I admire your passion. :) If I'm playing Devils Advocate, wouldn't I make the assumption that more water transportation/storage and distribution facilities are required :question: :question: :nod: :nod:
Read the info in the link you provided. Some good, some outdated. :neutral:
Both Cal-Fed and the Delta Blue Ribbon Commission had scientific input about the viability of the proposed peripheral canal. So the info received was less than 20 years old. Also, if you read the threads about "water usage" Under this and the Conservation Forums, you'll see some discussion about how water is transported, stored and sold in this state. Not necessarily in agreement with the author of the op-ed piece but researched. :confused:
Not sure some of the counters you provided were on point. :confused: For example, mentioning the class of rapids and type of usage involved in the section of the Moke that would be flooded doesn't counter the potential benefit of expanded capacity or the potential for loss of revenue to local businesses/government. IMHO, a response that addresses monetary issues is what will sell your proposal. :neutral: Also, you didn't mention whether it's better (more costly or less damaging, etc. :confused: ) to expand an existing dam or build a new one at a different location. :neutral: Of course, I realize you don't want a dam, at all. :)
Finally, whether or not EBMUD is building a pumping station downstream from the mouth of the American River, they still hold rights to water from the American at Lake Natoma. :neutral: The facility for diversion is already there and functional with canals that are full of water. :confused: Does it make sense that EBMUD wouldn't take water from that facility if they experienced a perceived shortage elsewhere :question: :question: And, might not the failure of the proposal to construct a higher dam at Pardee contribute to that perception :question:
Don,.... I feel your pain.... :angry: What's caused almost all of our problems is overpopulation compounded by the need to endlessly develop/consume. :nod:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Powell
Great post , Don . Pretty close to my feelings on the subject .
David
I think darian wins the award for the most obnoxious use of smileys...lost track of what he was trying to say with all the cartoons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Powell
Don, I did exactly this at one point, picked up moved to montana and later colorado...what I found surprised me...those states are pretty and there are some great sporting opportunities though once you are there you realize what you leave behind in california. I like to hunt and fish 365 days a year...we have it all here. if you want to only chase trout and elk montana is pretty cool, if you want to mix it up at all you are out of luck and 6 months out of the year there there is nothing to do except shoot coyotes and ice fish. from my house in chico I can be pursuing one of about 200 completely different types of outdoor recreation within a 2 hours drive...including at some pretty damn prestine areas.
Thanks for the sympathetic replies, all! I am comforted by the fact others are also cognizant of what is happening and share my distaste for it. Nonetheless, as has been pointed out, we do live in a great place with abundant opportunities for outdoor recreation. When we travel to more remote parts of our state, pristine wilderness still exists. I'll try to focus on that instead of whining about places that have suffered from becoming too popular or different from the necessary use of resources by our population.
Don your passion and respect for the evironments you enjoy make you richer than Madoff and co. could ever be. It's a shame how much these oligarchical figures truly are exploiting our environment/country.
I don't have the economic answers and the work it would take to actually figure that out would probably take more money and time than I have available to me.
The Moke provides recreation for many. It is a placed that is loved by many. If you need to show the economic opportunity cost, I think that misses the real point. This project will destroy something that is loved and its further destruction will be needless, as there are other alternatives that get the same result.
I'm going to stick with the Moke and I hope others do too.
B-
Brian,.... I know that you're a stand up guy and, believe it or not, I like the Moke, too. Altho I don't fish the portion you're involved with, I've put in a lot of days between there and the lakes above.
Regardless, you're mistaken about not being able to quantify the values involved to support your position. If you have anyone around that can develop the information and direct that outcome, you/they should undertake the task. Otherwise, I fear you're fighting a losing cause.
The project people (your opposition) certainly will or have done their homework. That's what you have to overcome.
I'm hoping you'll be successful.... :D :D
Another take on this is something I've heard from those who fish the Moke below Camanche - that raising Pardee and increasing water storage there could potentially benefit the salmon, steelhead, and resident trout populations downstream of Camanche Dam by potentially providing regular and consistent increased flows throughout the year.
Gaining access to the section (I believe through litigation) between Pardee and Camanche was a huge win for whitewater advocates a few years ago, as EBMUD used to have people accessing these waters arrested for trespassing. But some say fishing this section is not so hot due to constantly fluctuating flows.
When I say I can't get that data, well, I personally can't, but that sort of specific activity isn't in my job description. I have a whole boat load of other responsibilities here at FOR, more along the lines of major donor work, fundraising events, mail-based fundraising, new memberships, etc. There are others that might have a better handle on that sort of info. We've been working with the Foothill Conservancy and they might have that info. Their website has some good info on it. I posted here because I'm an angler, live in Pville and post on other fly fishing boards and have heard good things about this forum for a long time.
This looks like a battle that really can be won. This is pretty far from throwing pebbles at the waves. There are already at least two members of the EBMUD Board who are opposed to the Pardee dam raise, with another on the fence. The Board is only 7, so we only need 1.5 more votes and the dam won't be raised.
As far as a dam raise helping steelhead or salmon... that sounds like a wolf in sheep's clothing... how often have we heard about water projects that would in theory help salmon or steelhead? This would keep more water from going downstream and that is rarely a good thing for salmon or steelhead.