Sac river water update

Duck hunting in California topics include: California duck hunting trips, the past hunting seasons, and share information about California duck hunting guides.

Moderators: #1wingnut, duckman2000, PinTeal, finsnfeathershunter

Sac river water update

Postby Butta boom » Tue Feb 18, 2014 7:35 pm

I recieved my letter today from the USBR. They regret to inform me that they cannot deliver the water they are contractually bound to deliver, 75% supply. Instead they will only deliver a 40% supply. This allocation is the same for every settlement contractor, GCID, RD 108, Natomas, Princeton Codora Glen, etc.

This is the first time in history that the settlement contracts will not be honored. This historic event will trigger legal action for sure, but the real impact will be on the pacific flyway. These water allocations will reduce the planted acres of rice to the lowest amount since the fifties. My new estimate is 275,000 acres, about half of what was planted this year. The existence of winter water for hunting is also likely to be zero from the surface supplies.

As I have said in earlier posts, even the Butte Sink will suffer some water shortages early in the season, unless we have early weather.

The rice acres in Arkansas will be increased, due to our misfortune, and their own good weather luck this winter. While their season was only about sixty days this year, next year might be the year to make the move to Stuttgart.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm


Re: Sac river water update

Postby slowshooter » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:34 pm

Just want to be clear. There's been a state of emergency declared - and it sounds like you or your group are going to sue because you believe that emergencies shouldn't take priority over your contracts.

When are you going to stop turning every interaction with the Government into a way to extract taxpayer money? When it's bad you want money when it's good you want even more.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mean Gene » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:49 pm

Sue for water that doesn't exist? Brilliant! :fingerhead:
User avatar
Mean Gene
hunter
 
Posts: 865
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:16 pm
Location: Someplace

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Butta boom » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:00 pm

Mean Gene wrote:Sue for water that doesn't exist? Brilliant! :fingerhead:


Actually in our contract, we are required to pay for the water that we don't use. How's that good for conservation?

We will sue to get relief, perhaps permanently , from paying for our full entitlement unless we use it

PS. The water does exist behind Shasta, there is one million eight hundred thousand at present, USFWS has pulled strings to get seven or eight hundred thousand to preserve the "cold water pool" to allow for maximum spawning habitat next fall. They say it's not fish vs ducks. Or fish vs man, I beg to differ.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby friedcoot » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:17 pm

How can this be Mr. BB ? The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was signed by "Let me be perfectly clear", **** Nixon. A Republican.
Do we have a conspiracy theory?
User avatar
friedcoot
hunter
 
Posts: 1627
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 12:10 am
Location: Behind a laptop

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Butta boom » Tue Feb 18, 2014 9:53 pm

Since a good portion of the east bay also is a party to the CVP contracts, cities that get water from EBMUD will also feel considerable pain. When your construction business dies due to a connection ban, when your water bill doubles, for half the water, maybe the lack of planning for the future by the democrats will begin to sink in.

The Auburn Dam would get us out of this mess had it been built. The democrat enviro coalition along with the white water rafting crew that was chaining themselves to boulders in the then filling New Melones reservoir deserves the credit for the lack of water we are now enjoying.

Trust me there will be plenty of misery to go around. Yeah it I'll cost me plenty. I will be despondent over the lack of winter habitat that will exist next year. And the plummeting duck numbers, and lack of hunting opportunities, except for the overcrowded refuges.

You see, I saw all this twice before only this time it's even worse.

There is a bill to build two new dams in our legislature. I believe it is AB 1445, by Assemblyman Dan Logue. The Dems won't give it the light of day. It is the cheapest of all the water bills before the legislature, because there is only dams no pork.

Maybe if enough Bay Area folks get miserable enough, and they think about getting more water instead of driving less, they might vote republican for a change.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mean Gene » Tue Feb 18, 2014 10:39 pm

I can see not having to pay for water you don't get, but you sure as hell aren't going to get water that isn't there. Unless these storms changed things dramatically there is no water to spare. From what I've seen I'd say you're lucky as hell to get 40%.
User avatar
Mean Gene
hunter
 
Posts: 865
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 6:16 pm
Location: Someplace

Re: Sac river water update

Postby friedcoot » Tue Feb 18, 2014 11:16 pm

Butta boom wrote:. These water allocations will reduce the planted acres of rice to the lowest amount since the fifties. The existence of winter water for hunting is also likely to be zero from the surface supplies.



Hmmmm, less water means it might actually be a whole lot better for those who have it for hunting next year. Also, if you start seeing more hay and dry grain crops, you might see the great populations of pheasant return like in the 50's. I see lemonade.
User avatar
friedcoot
hunter
 
Posts: 1627
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 12:10 am
Location: Behind a laptop

Re: Sac river water update

Postby slowshooter » Wed Feb 19, 2014 1:40 am

friedcoot wrote:
Butta boom wrote:. These water allocations will reduce the planted acres of rice to the lowest amount since the fifties. The existence of winter water for hunting is also likely to be zero from the surface supplies.



Hmmmm, less water means it might actually be a whole lot better for those who have it for hunting next year. Also, if you start seeing more hay and dry grain crops, you might see the great populations of pheasant return like in the 50's. I see lemonade.


I'm going to Natomas and bulldozing a couple of neighborhoods. Just in case.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 19, 2014 6:46 am

Butta boom wrote:Since a good portion of the east bay also is a party to the CVP contracts, cities that get water from EBMUD will also feel considerable pain. When your construction business dies due to a connection ban, when your water bill doubles, for half the water, maybe the lack of planning for the future by the democrats will begin to sink in.

The Auburn Dam would get us out of this mess had it been built. The democrat enviro coalition along with the white water rafting crew that was chaining themselves to boulders in the then filling New Melones reservoir deserves the credit for the lack of water we are now enjoying.

Trust me there will be plenty of misery to go around. Yeah it I'll cost me plenty. I will be despondent over the lack of winter habitat that will exist next year. And the plummeting duck numbers, and lack of hunting opportunities, except for the overcrowded refuges.

You see, I saw all this twice before only this time it's even worse.

There is a bill to build two new dams in our legislature. I believe it is AB 1445, by Assemblyman Dan Logue. The Dems won't give it the light of day. It is the cheapest of all the water bills before the legislature, because there is only dams no pork.

Maybe if enough Bay Area folks get miserable enough, and they think about getting more water instead of driving less, they might vote republican for a change.


First the primary source of EBMUD's water comes from the Mokuloume watershed so they are not "primarily" affected more or less than anyone else because it's a drought and it is statewide. You imply you are getting shafted when I imagine everyone will have to live with less and implement water savings. The remainder of the SF area gets it's water from a reservoir that was built in a National Park, so much for the greenies always getting their way. Both are just a little farther South than your current source and having another half cup further south wouldn't help your half full cup further North.

To lay blame at the feet of Democrats and make this a political issue which it seems everything is to the far right, everything from it not raining enough too you not getting enough cards for your birthday is ridiculous. Guess what, the life we are living is unsustainable for the most part and sooner or later regardless of everyones "lack of planning" the $hit is going to hit the fan. Further every subsequent hit down the road will hit harder than the last no matter what is done. Building another dam won't solve anyone's water problem it will only forestall the inevitable. Guess what again, if the Auburn dam was built it would be half empty or more as well because here's the 5 o clock news, it's a drought McFly, so it wouldn't "get us out of this mess" only more rain will.

You say you have seen this two times before...well we all have and this time except the degree is even more it is unprecedented. We will ALL be feeling the pinch in one way or another. If there is going to be a lawsuit then I hope you do prevail for not paying for water you do not receive. However I suspect the real impetus will be to try and get your full and deserving "first in line" dividends which from your repeated rhetoric you seem to feel "entitled" to and seems to be your real veiled complaint. So which is it?

The Bay area has BART and most folks down there probably drive less than many other people, so I don't know how your Bay Area bombs you keep throwing apply, except for the adage of keep throwing it at the wall and hope some of it sticks? I'm not a Democrat and for the record I am a registered Republican, however the next time I resister I think I will change my affiliation to Independent as neither party has every answer but no single party is to blame for "everything" either that goes wrong in the world and that includes the lack of rain. I'll choose to pick among the choices of reason and what is wrong or right and not blindly align with nor throw my lot in with either party.

If we look at our population growth as it approaches the plane of it's exponential current growth, the asymptote in comparison to the demand for the earths finite resources will eventually cross. Why is it so easy to see with lemmings or for any wildlife population for that matter but so hard for people to see in ourselves? Water is just one of the many resources being taxed to the limit now and there will be others to come assuredly in the future.
Last edited by marsh-mello on Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:21 am

slowshooter wrote:
friedcoot wrote:
Butta boom wrote:. These water allocations will reduce the planted acres of rice to the lowest amount since the fifties. The existence of winter water for hunting is also likely to be zero from the surface supplies.



Hmmmm, less water means it might actually be a whole lot better for those who have it for hunting next year. Also, if you start seeing more hay and dry grain crops, you might see the great populations of pheasant return like in the 50's. I see lemonade.


I'm going to Natomas and bulldozing a couple of neighborhoods. Just in case.

Why don't you start with Berkeley?
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:23 am

marsh-mello wrote:I'm not a Democrat and for the record I am a registered Republican, however the next time I resister I think I will change my affiliation to Independent as neither party has every answer but no single party is to blame for "everything" either that goes wrong in the world and that includes the lack of rain. I'll choose to pick among the choices of reason and what is wrong or right and not blindly align with nor throw my lot in with either.

Well if that doesn't qualify as meeting the definition of RINO I don't know what does.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby slowshooter » Wed Feb 19, 2014 2:17 pm

Mallards Only wrote:
slowshooter wrote:
friedcoot wrote:
Butta boom wrote:. These water allocations will reduce the planted acres of rice to the lowest amount since the fifties. The existence of winter water for hunting is also likely to be zero from the surface supplies.



Hmmmm, less water means it might actually be a whole lot better for those who have it for hunting next year. Also, if you start seeing more hay and dry grain crops, you might see the great populations of pheasant return like in the 50's. I see lemonade.


I'm going to Natomas and bulldozing a couple of neighborhoods. Just in case.

Why don't you start with Berkeley?


No pheasants there. That's why.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Calikev » Wed Feb 19, 2014 3:01 pm

This affects everyone Statewide. Only 40% of Level 2 water supplies are available and virtually no Level 4 water. Some areas will be hit worse than others all depending on how much Level 4 water they usually take.

I'm not sure what the BOR can do in this situation. There just isn't enough to go around and then there is great fear about 2015. Drastic times require drastic measures.

Most of us have never waterfowl hunted under conditions this extreme. I remember the drought of the 70's and the lack of good water systems in the Grasslands. I remember a lot of cut quotas and sweat lines in those days as there were less areas to hunt back then. I think this season we will go back to those days whether we like it or not. Many of the "bonus" areas we have for public hunters will just not have water this year. We are spread way too thin so there will be some waiting to get into the key areas. The real question is how much of the hunt area will still be open as sanctuary areas will be a top priority as well. I could see some very small quotas on the refuges this year.

The Grasslands clubs are going to feel this big time. Many of them rely upon Level 4 water deliveries to meet their allotment. I don't see how they are going to manage if they are getting 1/3 of their normal water.
"It seems the harder I work the more luck I seem to have"
Calikev
hunter
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:14 pm
Location: Oakdale

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Butta boom » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:51 pm

The water being diverted now in the delta, about 3000 AF, is mostly headed to San Luis for the refuges next fall. That is thanks to Bush 41, for signing the CVP improvement act. That amount of water diverted daily will soon add up to a pretty good supply for the grasslands refuges. The only rub is that the state wants to steal some of that water and take it to LA, they are calling it "health and safety water". This needs to be closely watched. The refuges have priority for this water and if they are short, we will now know where it went.

This diversion will only last a while but it should provide enough water for the refuges down there.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:18 pm

Mallards Only wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:I'm not a Democrat and for the record I am a registered Republican, however the next time I resister I think I will change my affiliation to Independent as neither party has every answer but no single party is to blame for "everything" either that goes wrong in the world and that includes the lack of rain. I'll choose to pick among the choices of reason and what is wrong or right and not blindly align with nor throw my lot in with either.

Well if that doesn't qualify as meeting the definition of RINO I don't know what does.


Well I guess you are going to have to admit AGAIN that you just don't know then, because the qualification of the definition of term independent would be....drum roll...independent.

Though there is not much guessing as to what your cup of extremist "TEA" is.
Last edited by marsh-mello on Thu Feb 20, 2014 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby slowshooter » Thu Feb 20, 2014 12:53 am

Butta boom wrote: "health and safety water".


I can just imagine you making finger quotes and rolling your eyes whenever you say that out loud.

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9011
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Butta boom » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:04 am

slowshooter wrote:
Butta boom wrote: "health and safety water".


I can just imagine you making finger quotes and rolling your eyes whenever you say that out loud.

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3:


Guilty as charged, if they can refer to LA's water as "health and safety water", Ag water will from now on be referred to as "hunger prevention" water.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Calikev » Thu Feb 20, 2014 2:45 pm

Butta boom wrote:The water being diverted now in the delta, about 3000 AF, is mostly headed to San Luis for the refuges next fall. That is thanks to Bush 41, for signing the CVP improvement act. That amount of water diverted daily will soon add up to a pretty good supply for the grasslands refuges. The only rub is that the state wants to steal some of that water and take it to LA, they are calling it "health and safety water". This needs to be closely watched. The refuges have priority for this water and if they are short, we will now know where it went.

This diversion will only last a while but it should provide enough water for the refuges down there.



There will not be a "pretty good" supply of water for the Grasslands unless we get a lot more rain. The BOR indicated that all Level 2 water is being cut down to 40%. This means that many of the refuges will see 1/3 of the normal water they get. So you can imagine the quotas will be cut down next to nothing next season as sanctuary areas will get first priority for the birds.
"It seems the harder I work the more luck I seem to have"
Calikev
hunter
 
Posts: 778
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 7:14 pm
Location: Oakdale

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Butta boom » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:14 pm

Calikev wrote:
Butta boom wrote:The water being diverted now in the delta, about 3000 AF, is mostly headed to San Luis for the refuges next fall. That is thanks to Bush 41, for signing the CVP improvement act. That amount of water diverted daily will soon add up to a pretty good supply for the grasslands refuges. The only rub is that the state wants to steal some of that water and take it to LA, they are calling it "health and safety water". This needs to be closely watched. The refuges have priority for this water and if they are short, we will now know where it went.

This diversion will only last a while but it should provide enough water for the refuges down there.



There will not be a "pretty good" supply of water for the Grasslands unless we get a lot more rain. The BOR indicated that all Level 2 water is being cut down to 40%. This means that many of the refuges will see 1/3 of the normal water they get. So you can imagine the quotas will be cut down next to nothing next season as sanctuary areas will get first priority for the birds.


Your point is a good one, because it illuminates what our government tells the public, and how that message is tailored to the audience. On Wednesday I was present at a DWR workshop, dealing with and explaining how diversions and Delta pumping would be managed for the drought. A real dog and pony show.

We were informed that a 1500 CFS diversion was now occurring in the delta to points south, to supply the refuges, and "health and safety water". That amounts to 3000 AF each day, today the Sac River is running at about 5000 CFS, or in 24 hrs, about 10,000af. So if they are taking a third of the river to "supply the refuges" I tended to believe them. The CVPIA provides for that supply, and I know that, so that is a good lie to tell to me and my fellow water users up here. The BS part was this "health and safety water" , that is not very well provided for by law, and seems to be where my and now your water is going.

From what I have been told, the refuges have priority over most of the other users because of CVPIA. It sounds like we are each being told a different story, in different regions. Did I mention how much I hate liars?
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 414
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Fri Feb 21, 2014 7:56 am

No doubt this is why the meeting was cancelled. They needed more time to manufacture the "lie."
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 277
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby ditchbanker » Fri Feb 21, 2014 2:09 pm

...At about 38 million people
...CA is the most populous State in our Nation
...projections (supported by the California Water Management Plan) are that the State population will be 50m by 2050.
...rather than designing to support an unsustainable population target
...how about limiting development OF ALL KIND (sorry...development includes farming) to target a lower State population
...just to pick a number how about 30m?

...at 30m people
...still a fairly big State
...and with smaller population/limited development...real estate values go through the roof
...then...more people want to be here but the Economy selects them out
...and who does the work the wealthier people dont want to do for themselves?
...same people who do it now...we just would have to pay them more to do it
...hmmmmm :huh:
"Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment." - Will Rogers
User avatar
ditchbanker
hunter
 
Posts: 859
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 11:54 am
Location: berkeley ca

Re: Sac river water update

Postby friedcoot » Fri Feb 21, 2014 4:27 pm

ditchbanker wrote:...how about limiting development OF ALL KIND :


That won't get my support...Sounds a bit "Agenda 21" to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
User avatar
friedcoot
hunter
 
Posts: 1627
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 12:10 am
Location: Behind a laptop

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Huntsprig » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:12 pm

ditchbanker wrote:...At about 38 million people
...CA is the most populous State in our Nation
...projections (supported by the California Water Management Plan) are that the State population will be 50m by 2050.
...rather than designing to support an unsustainable population target
...how about limiting development OF ALL KIND (sorry...development includes farming) to target a lower State population
...just to pick a number how about 30m?

...at 30m people
...still a fairly big State
...and with smaller population/limited development...real estate values go through the roof
...then...more people want to be here but the Economy selects them out
...and who does the work the wealthier people dont want to do for themselves?
...same people who do it now...we just would have to pay them more to do it
...hmmmmm :huh:



Or maybe we could put you plan onto effect in the parts of the state that don't have enough water to support themselves.
Northern CA (North of the delta) has enough water for it's towns, ag and the environment there simply is just not enough extra to support the rest of the state any longer.
It is time for the rest of the state to live up to what it agreed to and quit talking the north's water and to find other sources.

As they said in 1933:

Text from the Referendum Measure 12/19/1933 (prop. 1- which authorized the Central Valley Project)

Argument Against Water And Power Referendum Measure:
"Nor is it certain that the Sacramento Valley will always have water to spare. True, there is a recapture clause; but once communities in the San Joaquin become dependent on the water from the Sacramento, they will find a way to keep it. Thus the development of the Sacramento Valley will be limited."

Maybe it is time for south state to quit acting like a weasel and do the honorable thing and live up to the deal they made.
Huntsprig
hunter
 
Posts: 222
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:42 am
Location: Sacramento, Ca.

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Tommyo » Fri Feb 21, 2014 5:40 pm

Exactly right. It seems reasonable to me to require that the onus for complying with all regulations be placed on the parties in need who seek to import water from outside their own area of origin.
Find a way when there is no way.
Tommyo
hunter
 
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:46 pm

Next

Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests