Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: New reservoir in Northern California?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sebastian, FL, USA, Earth
    Posts
    23,837

    Default New reservoir in Northern California?

    Bill Kiene (Boca Grande)

    567 Barber Street
    Sebastian, Florida 32958

    Fly Fishing Travel Consultant
    Certified FFF Casting Instructor

    Email: billkiene63@gmail.com
    Cell: 530/753-5267
    Web: www.billkiene.com

    Contact me for any reason........
    ______________________________________

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Question Sites Reservoir....

    Bill, I'm surprised that you posted this, given your past posts about dams. 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??
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sebastian, FL, USA, Earth
    Posts
    23,837

    Default

    Yes Darian, I don't like dams and am glad they are finally taking some down in our lifetime.
    Bill Kiene (Boca Grande)

    567 Barber Street
    Sebastian, Florida 32958

    Fly Fishing Travel Consultant
    Certified FFF Casting Instructor

    Email: billkiene63@gmail.com
    Cell: 530/753-5267
    Web: www.billkiene.com

    Contact me for any reason........
    ______________________________________

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tejas !!
    Posts
    792

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Proposed Sites Rsvr

    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).
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Placer County
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Sites Rsvr

    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???
    "America is a country which produces citizens who will cross the ocean to fight for democracy but won't cross the street to vote."

    Author unknown

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Tejas !!
    Posts
    792

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Yuba City
    Posts
    67

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Davis
    Posts
    756

    Default

    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •