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....