Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: New reservoir in Northern California?

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Placer County
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John H View Post
    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

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    7,786

    Default Sites Rsvr

    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.
    "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. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Shatanistan
    Posts
    94

    Default

    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Garden Valley
    Posts
    1,076

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fishtopher View Post
    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
    "Lord help me to be the person my dog thinks I am"
    - unknown

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Placer County
    Posts
    1,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JasonB View Post
    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.
    Last edited by OceanSunfish; 07-26-2019 at 08:56 AM.

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
  •