Bollibokka anyone have extra space???

**Darian** · 01-06-2015, 01:01 AM

If I recall, correctly, approval/funding authorizing raising Shasta was a part of Proposition 2 in the recent election. Raising Shasta and constructing additional dams is, also, on the target list of federal projects for the incoming Congress. I believe that calling for increased storage is included in the BDCP and supported by many of our northern/central valley congress persons and our senior Senator (Dianne Feinstein). So, due to the level of interest at state/federal levels, some form of change to Shasta Dam is on the way.

I can't say I blame The Fly Shop for anything. They had nothing to do with the transfer of the property to Westlands. As a property owner, Westlands is entitled to do what it wants with its own land as long as it's legal/permitted. I'll bet the Fly Shop has no interest in seeing the McCloud inundated, either. I'd say they're offering an opportunity to fly fisherman who can afford it to fish a part of the McCloud that was probably too costly for the general public anyway....

Not defending them but Westlands is no different than any of the water contractors/districts. They obtain water to sell to their customers. They have learned, over time, that one way to acquire water is to buy real property in other water districts and then become a board member of the water district in question. That's what happened when LA Water/Power bought up large swaths of property in the eastern Sierras and drained Owens Lake, etc. Kern County Water Bank was taken over by corporate Resnicks and in another instance Metropolitan Water District acquired an interest in land in the Yolo Bypass (Conaway Ranch) area to obtain Sacramento River Water. Nothing new in this. Kinda looks like the way of future water moves to me....

**SeanO** · 01-06-2015, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Bob Loblaw

I've followed the tangled history of this purchase a little and it is quite a web of greed and intrigue...

Bob, thanks for that.

Great rundown on the history for new folks.

**Bob Loblaw** · 01-06-2015, 01:21 PM

Not the case Darian. the recent Water Bond, Prop 1, does have $2.7 billion for additional storage but none of it is earmarked for any particular projects. It is true that raising Shasta would be more cost effective than building a new dam elsewhere (it was engineered to be 200 feet higher, but they ran out of concrete during WWII), but the deal that was cut that kept most of the environmental groups out of the fight was that this money would be used to recharge depleted groundwater aquifers.

It is also going to be very difficult to get federal money for the project, especially without a considerable state match. Westlands have an uphill fight, but they are very well connected, have limitless amounts of money, and are ruthless. I also disagree that they are just like any other water agency, they are not. They have over many generations bought up water rights on dozens of California watersheds and have systematically used all their power to drain as much water out of them as possible, to hell with the consequences. Last summer, during the height of the drought, they sued to stop minimal water releases from Lewiston into the lower Klamath to keep salmon alive below the dam. Their farmers plant more and more almonds and their lawyers sue to stop minimum flows for fish. They are ruthless.

**Bob Loblaw** · 01-06-2015, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by salmonid

Bob, thanks for that.

Great rundown on the history for new folks.

Shasta guide Jack Trout has a website that documents the whole sorry episode including email exchanges between himself and the Hill family. Its fascinating stuff.

**Darian** · 01-07-2015, 12:08 AM

With apologies for continuing the highjack of the original posters thread, I have to disagree with you, Bob L. While it's true that funding for a specific project was not included in the proposition, that certainly doesn't preclude using the funds ($2.7 Billion) that were included to match potential federal funding for use on raising Shasta even tho the bill that the proposition created was supposed to be "Delta neutral". Further, given the agenda of our newly installed congressional delegation/leadership from the central valley and the fact that our senior senator has been involved in the development of drought relief legislation, including increased storage capacity, it's very likely that specific, federal legislation with funding attached is passed out of this session.

Bob L states that:

"....Their farmers plant more and more almonds and their lawyers sue to stop minimum flows for fish. They are ruthless." True that. However, the last I heard, a grower may choose to grow whatever crop they want. After all, it's done on their land. Ruthless?? Yes, in the pursuit of water for their customers. It's how they use that water and then drain it untreated into or waterways that bothers me.

As to their lawyers suing for increased diversion from the Trinity River, I agree that was unfortunate but, again, not illegal. They sued to enforce contract provisions for delivery of water that they thought was withheld unnecessarily and lost. The court weighed the facts and greater good and decided against Westlands. Apparently, the risk of loss was worth it to Westlands.

I'm not sure why you think that Westlands is different than other water districts. Regardless of where they are located, all water districts either develop their own sources or buy water from the feds and/or state project water agencies; then sell it to their customers. It's not illegal that they have large sums of money or that they use it to buy property as long as that property is willingly sold. I don't particularly like what Westlands and some others do and we may not agree with or like how they carry out acquiring water to sell/distribute but as long as it's legal, they get to continue in business.

Perhaps you don't recall the horrific economic/environmental results of LA Dep't of Water & Power (now involved with LA Metro Water Dept) in acquiring land along the south-eastern side of the Sierras roughly from the northern Mojave area up thru Mono Lake to capture, store (in Crowley Lake) and transport that water to the San Fernando Valley for agriculture/development. It's a bit different now but when I was a teenager fishing up there, you had to be careful mentioning that you were from the LA area. If you need more examples, look up Kern County Water Bank, Central Basin Muni Water District for the connection between the district and former state legislators, the Calderons. Recently, LAMWD acquired land in Yolo County near or on Conaway Ranch for the purposes of acquiring Sacramento River water. Conaway, itself was sold to AKT Development who, in turn, sold at least some of the water rights acquired to Davis and Woodland. There're several more but I'm not sure this part of the discussion is useful.

At any rate, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this issue....

**Bob Loblaw** · 01-07-2015, 02:40 PM

At risk of descending into a point/counterpoint black hole, I'll agree to disagree with you too on pretty much everything you said. (and I have a copy of Cadillac Desert right here on my desk)

I would add however, (only because you asked) that what sets Westlands apart from most others can be seen in that litigation over water releases into the Trinity last summer. Lets ignore for a moment that Westlands is in the south eastern part of the Central Valley and under any natural law scenario they have no claim to Klamath/Trinity water. That water flowed into the ocean on the far north coast for hundreds of thousands of years and never went anywhere near Westlands until they facilitated the construction of a pipeline to transfer water out of the watershed and into the State Water Project. They claim they have "rights" to that water, but in reality they acquired it not through any inalienable birthright, but through the flexing of their political and financial muscle. The people in and wildlife in the Klamath/Trinity watershed have rights to that water, nobody else. But if we ignore that and focus on the litigation and why Westlands sued to stop releases for salmon last year you see how ruthless and uncaring they really are. They had already received 100% of their allocation for 2014 from the Trinity when they filed the lawsuit so any water released to keep the salmon run alive would have had zero impact on their activities. They were suing to make a point not to protect crops and if making that point meant killing a whole run of protected salmon, so be it. I don't know of any other water agency that has pulled a stunt like that. I also differentiate water agencies that supply drinking water for people in California from those that supply water to almond farmers who export their crop to China. I'm prepared to give California people more leeway and precedence over diners in Beijing and their Kung Pao Chicken.

**steveg137** · 01-07-2015, 07:57 PM

Great debate.
You guys know more about this than most people like me ever will.
nice for two people to lay out their pov without resorting to insults.
I hope you get together, agree common cause and champion change.