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.
You can't buy happiness, but you can buy new fly fishing gear and that usually does the trick.
Bookmarks