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

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:22 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:

And the anti-capitalism regime speaks again. Wouldn't want to do anything to stimulate the economy and business. That might get some people off welfare and off the entitlement bandwagon. God forbid, they might stop voting Democratic.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA


Re: Sac river water update

Postby slowshooter » Fri Feb 21, 2014 6:35 pm

The moocher speaks. How many entitlements do you get MO? You never answered the questions asked.

And it's likely you won't. Better to hold up folks that have fallen into the safety net as a distraction than explain why your on it and don't need to be.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Beretta06 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 9:56 pm

We could start with de population by not pushing amnesty? And shipping illegal residents home? What are they Gona do after they are legal anyway? There's no water to grow with. I guess they can make their $17.87 an hour on welfare. How bout the state pushes some of the water storage projects the environmentalists have tied up with red tape like the Los Banos Grande reservoir project. It's been in the works since the 80s.


Dwight
Beretta06
hunter
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Butta boom » Fri Feb 21, 2014 10:45 pm

If we limit population growth and force some other folks to leave where will I find people to hate? Forget it, let the state grow, build a few more dams, AND PUT PEOPLE TO WORK.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Beretta06 » Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:16 pm

How are you going to get those dams built? There's several that have never made it past the environmental impact stage. Maybe we could all ride the high speed train to go hunting



Dwight
Beretta06
hunter
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:43 am

slowshooter wrote:The moocher speaks. How many entitlements do you get MO? You never answered the questions asked.

And it's likely you won't. Better to hold up folks that have fallen into the safety net as a distraction than explain why your on it and don't need to be.


Crickets?

Some people should just probably stay away from Math, Science, Economics and Political Analysis. A better start would be to just try to walk more upright. :lol3:
Last edited by marsh-mello on Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:16 pm, 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: 569
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Sat Feb 22, 2014 9:08 am

marsh-mello wrote:
slowshooter wrote:The moocher speaks. How many entitlements do you get MO? You never answered the questions asked.

And it's likely you won't. Better to hold up folks that have fallen into the safety net as a distraction than explain why your on it and don't need to be.


Crickets?

Some people should just probably stay away from Math, Science, Political Analysis. A good start would be to just try to walking more upright. :lol3:

Yes, they should. I've spent my life analyzing facts, research, and objective data and my training has forced me to analyze that data and make conclusions based on those facts and research. That carries over into other issues that may not pertain to my career. What's your excuse?
I guess this was another one of your hypocritical, "I'm better than you because I don't make personal attacks" posts?
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:18 pm

Mallards Only wrote:
marsh-mello wrote:
slowshooter wrote:The moocher speaks. How many entitlements do you get MO? You never answered the questions asked.

And it's likely you won't. Better to hold up folks that have fallen into the safety net as a distraction than explain why your on it and don't need to be.


Crickets?

Some people should just probably stay away from Math, Science, Economics and Political Analysis. A good start would be to just try to walking more upright. :lol3:

Yes, they should. I've spent my life analyzing facts, research, and objective data and my training has forced me to analyze that data and make conclusions based on those facts and research. That carries over into other issues that may not pertain to my career. What's your excuse?
I guess this was another one of your hypocritical, "I'm better than you because I don't make personal attacks" posts?


So claims the man who never answers the questions. :yes:

sat·ire
ˈsaˌtīr/
noun
1.
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's folly, weakness or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.


My post is mostly satire and having fun with some kind of "wagon" someone mentioned they hitched themselves to earlier. Wouldn't have been you name calling again could it? Good luck with that and stand up straight next time you address me, you'll get used to it in time. :lol3:

Here add yourself to this list of other smart doctors...enjoy the host as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19LUncgG8VA
Last edited by marsh-mello on Sat Feb 22, 2014 10:09 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Beretta06 » Sat Feb 22, 2014 3:40 pm

I am employed my a southern CA water agency. Which Infact has not yet issued conservation notices as most other agency's have. In fact where I live 50 miles north of where I work has already issued conservation letters. Why my employer has not is 100% money and politically driven. Between AG use and the local university and the universities pending building permits. My employer will not likely issue conservation letters until those permits are used and we issue can and will serve letters to the city for them to go ahead and issue those permits.
There's a lot of AG interests on the board so who knows they may not issue conservation letters until the lake is dry and ground water basin is empty. As far as political BS that really just scratches the surface.

I'm fully aware of the water situation. I'm fully aware that CA has not expanded water storage capacity in decades. Since the last drought the population has grown. So has water demands. No brainier right. Apparently not because the hi speed train has gotten more political push than water storage and infrastructure projects. People do not care about water until the facet doesn't run.

The local desal plant was mothballed a few months after it was opened right after the match mirical. It was disassembled and sold to a Middle East country. Because it cost money to maintain and desal is expensive. I'm extreemly discouraged by my employer and the low priority the state has given water storage and infrastructure.


Dwight
Beretta06
hunter
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:44 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby friedcoot » Sat Feb 22, 2014 6:00 pm

Beretta06 wrote: What are they Gona do after they are legal anyway?

Dwight


Have lots of little Catholic babies and go to under funded public schools in agricultural communities.
friedcoot
hunter
 
Posts: 1492
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 12:10 am
Location: Behind a laptop

Re: Sac river water update

Postby slowshooter » Sun Feb 23, 2014 9:52 pm

You say that like there is something wrong with it.
All this for a bowl of borscht.
User avatar
slowshooter
hunter
 
Posts: 9019
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby friedcoot » Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:08 pm

slowshooter wrote:You say that like there is something wrong with it.


Wrong with what? Religion?,underfunded schools? or agriculture? I like babies.
friedcoot
hunter
 
Posts: 1492
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 12:10 am
Location: Behind a laptop

Re: Sac river water update

Postby High Sierras » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:14 pm

marsh-mello wrote:
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.

Um… it actually would. If we had sufficient storage reservoirs built along the central Sierra, we wouldn’t need to let water drain out of Oroville & Shasta to feed into the California Viaduct and the central valley to replace the water the folks in the middle of the state watch flood out through the delta every winter. All that water could be kept up there to feed the vast rice paddies of the northern Sacramento Valley.
marsh-mello wrote: 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.

Half empty or more??? Completing the Auburn Dam even 10 years ago would have caught the snowmelt from 2010 – 2011, where we had over 70 FEET of snowfall up at Donner Summit. If it had been built back in the mid to late 70’s as planned, it would also have had a chance to capture the catastrophic runoff & floods of 1986. And all of the surplus water for the intervening 30 + years of winter runoff. Having Folsom right downstream would have allowed the BOR to let the Auburn dam fill up for water storage, and use Folsom dam as intended… a buffer in the event of a catastrophic spring flood like we had in 1986. It’s quite possible the Auburn dam would have been more likely ¾ or more full this spring. At 2.3 million acre-feet projected capacity, that would have been a LOT of water. So much for half empty (or more…).

In years past, Northern CA relied on that immense seasonal reservoir known as the Sierra snowpack. It slowly fed the giant reservoirs like Shasta, Oroville, Folsom, and New Melones all summer long. If global warming (man-made or not) is really occurring as the eco-scientists claim, then we had better stop sitting on our hands and start building dams like our lives depended on it. When we get large amounts of rainfall now, the bulk of it is flushed out the Golden Gate within weeks for lack of a place to store it... we’ve always had the Sierra snowpack to keep us hydrated all summer long.

The Stanislaus, Mokuloume, Consumnes, Yuba, Bear… There’s literally dozens of rivers up and down the Sierras that could have a series of smaller dams placed every 30 miles or so. It would allow us to trap all the runoff from the winter storms, the release it slowly all summer long as demand requires so we would have plenty of water for farmers and cities (and ducks and delta smelt…) in the Central Valley and make the need for flood levees pretty much obsolete. We would probably even have some leftover to SELL to southern CA.

For what it’s worth (and while Butta and I don’t agree on much) I think he was trying to point out that the anti-dam builders in California are, for the most part, elements of the rabid left wing of the democrat party. Those folks that want to go up on the weekends in the winter & spring and watch the winter storm runoff pound down ‘wild’ canyons unhindered by dams and at the same time have water for their pools, yards, parks and golf courses come summer. But those "wild canyon huggers" can’t seem to wrap their heads around the fact that Califonia has extremely seasonal water deliveries... we get around 85% of our precipitation between October 15th and April 15th, and without the dams & reservoirs, we're mostly a semi-desert / grassland type of state. If that makes the current drought a political issue, then he’s right -- it does fall on the democrat party’s shoulders for the legacy of blocking dam building projects thirty years ago. If we want to keep developing as a place folks want to move to and live here, and still produce something like 50% of the U.S.’s vegetable supply, we need to stop blocking dam bulding and improve our water storage and delivery system to keep up with demand.

marsh-mello wrote: 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.
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Sac river water update

Postby High Sierras » Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:22 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:


Sound vaguely like what the rich @$$holes over in Tahoe keep trying to do... limit real estate development in the Basin to keep their own property values hiked up while claiming it's to "Help Keep Tahoe Blue". :no:
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Mon Feb 24, 2014 6:24 pm

High Sierras, I guess if you think placing a reservoir every 30 miles or so on every Sierra stream and consider that a good thing, you have convinced yourself, but probably not anyone with any sense about conservation and ecology. Plus "smaller dams" would have to pencil out and the cost for what you say is a smaller dam might not hold enough to make it financially feasible. SO just how much would this cost and who should/would pay and how much return would one see? Pertinent questions which must be definitively answered with as much certainty as any business plan in order to be funded and actually work. It's easy to just say things without connecting all the dots.

Now can there be more storage infrastructure built? Perhaps, but how much is enough and how much is too much given the environmental cost? Deer do drown when trying to cross Whiskytown and Oroville to travel along their historical migration routes. I imagine Shasta has a few casualties along with New Melones as well although I have not heard anything about any problems there. Inundation of vast areas of foothill habitat which is essential for many, many animals and quite a few game animals is a trade off, I might add they have already been pushed around if not out of house and home by people. WIldlife is managed best on a ecosystem level which includes maintaing connectivity to habitats to keep the entire web of life healthy. While some might think only in anthropocentric terms there are many competing considerations and damming up every river and stream so we can continue unfettered growth is insane. As long as we continue to grow in population and our economic success is predicated on continued growth, then we will eventually and continually reach these breaking points inevitably it will only be a matter of time vs growth.

You act like in flood years or over the term of many years we can save every drop of water that comes down the pipe for the future...it just does not work that way any dam built before now would be half empty as most are now. There are now many many lakes and reservoirs which are up in the Sierra's most are connected to power generation or recreation and they serve a multi use purpose. We have Englebright which is huge and primarily a flood and sediment control structure and we also have Sonoma and Berryessa on the coast range which at last check are pretty darn big and pretty darn full? However all these resources have different entities owning and controlling them for different purposes. If it were not for the Federal Government we wouldn't have half of what we have now and the water behind these FEDERAL projects were paid for by ALL Americans for everyone's benefit. I hear talk regarding first in line...well the wildlife and certainly salmon might debate this issue with some of the claimants. Kinda funny how we always hear folks claiming that the water is THEIRS or OURS...truth is it was a resource which was developed for everyone out there is only so much that can go around in a drought year. So this is one of these situations where we all should act responsibly and continue to develop conservation measures which are no where near practical maximum efficiency and look toward developing responsible additional storage without going off the deep end.

Holy bejeezus take a look at how many dams we already have now...over 1400, probably more than you ever suspected. Probably after every last one was built everyone thought our water problems were solved... :fingerpt:

http://www.kqed.org/news/science/climat ... er/map.jsp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_da ... California
Last edited by marsh-mello on Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby High Sierras » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:38 pm

marsh-mello wrote:High Sierras, I guess if you think placing a reservoir every 30 miles or so on every Sierra stream and consider that a good thing, you have convinced yourself, but probably not anyone with any sense about conservation and ecology.

Now can there be more storage infrastructure built? Perhaps but how much is enough and how much is too much given the environmental cost? Deer do drown when trying to cross Whiskytown and Oroville to travel along their historical migration routes. I imagine Shasta has a few casualties along with New Melones as well although I have not heard anything about any problems there.

:lol3: :lol3: :lol3: No, wait, you're joking, right? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: Deer swim all the time, that's how they got to Angel Island. And just like people, some deer do indeed occasionally drown. Does that mean you honestly think we should also outlaw humans from swimming in Oroville and Shasta to save the human race??? Just about any western landscape touched by a reservoir becomes a net plus for wildlife, who depend on access to water almost as much as we do. And those few deer that drowned you were trying to use as an excuse??? They won't reproduce more deer that can't think their way around a reservoir. Think of it as Darwin in action.
marsh-mello wrote:Inundation of vast areas of foothill habitat is essential for many, many animals and quite a few game animals I might add that haven't already been pushed around if not out of house and home by people. WIldlife is managed best on a ecosystem level which includes maintaing connectivity to habitats to keep the entire web of life healthy.


And those ecosystems you talk about were shattered decades ago by humans and towns and houses and reservoirs and interstate highways. A few more dams aren't going to make the Sierra deer herd wander off into the Nevada desert looking for the good old days.
marsh-mello wrote: While some might think only in anthropocentric terms there are many competing considerations and damming up every river and stream so we can continue unfettered growth is insane.

Hopefully you were able to get that knee jerk under control in time to read where I said we could manage the rivers' floodwaters with a set of dams... obviously that does not mean to dam every river and stream in the mountians. But having a series of dams would keep more water up in the foothills for wildlife to use, would keep more water for humans to use, and would prevent catastrophic flooding in the wet years... also saving countless deer from drowning.
marsh-mello wrote: As long as we continue to grow in population and our economic success is predicted on continued growth, then we will eventually and continually reach these breaking points inevitably it will only be a matter of time vs growth.

OK, I"m all ears. What part of society do you think we should start trimming from the gene pool to keep our population down??? Or is the whole "let's not plan for our future so we can fight over water" your plan for reducing the population? Or is it just the old "Stop watering your lawns, stop washing your car, stop flushing your toilets, live with less so we can keep growing without planning" your strategy?

marsh-mello wrote:You act like in flood years or over the term of many years we can save every drop of water that comes down the pipe for the future...it just does not work that way. There are now many many lakes and reservoirs which are up in the sierra's most are connected to power generation or recreation and they serve a multi use purpose. We have Englebright which is huge and primarily a flood and sediment control structure and we also have Sonoma, Berryessa which at last check are pretty darn big and pretty darn full. However all these resources have different entities owning and controlling them.

Do you really believe reservoirs can't be used for retaining winter runoff, so why build them? Do you think the Sierra snowpack will always provide enough water for us all summer long, so why bother trying to conserve it as it comes down the mountain?

All I'm saying is that we need to start considering conserving the water up in the mountains instead of letting it flood off and go out the Golden Gate where it does no one (not even the animals...) a bit of good come late August. Retaining it high up in the Sierras makes sense from a transportation standpoint... you don't have to pump water downhill to the valley where it's needed... you just have to keep it up here between the time it's delivered (Oct - April) until the time it's needed (April - Oct).

marsh-mello wrote:If it were not for the Federal Government we wouldn't have half of what we have now and the water behind these FEDERAL projects were paid for by ALL Americans for everyone's benefit. Kinda funny how we always hear folks claiming that the water is THEIRS or OURS...truth is it was a resource which was developed for everyone out there is only so much that can go around in a drought year.

I'll bet Butta will be happy to chime in on who was the reason those federal projects were pushed through Congress. And thus, who feel they're entitled to the water stored behind those dams. Too bad you think we don't need any more dams for water the rest of you folk living down in the valley could use, too.

marsh-mello wrote:So this is one of these situations where we all should act responsibly and continue to develop conservation measures which are no where near practical maximum efficiency and look toward developing responsible additional storage without going off the deep end.
[/quote]
I never implied going off the deep end. I simply said there's way too many Sierra river canyons that barely have a trickle running through them come mid summer that would make fine dam sites... and give us the lifeblood of the economy for years to come. Impounding heavy runoff to prevent flooding and retaining it for summers when it's scarce IS the ultimate conservation measure... on both ends of the flood/drought spectrum.

One great example I can point to is the Bear River, in between Placer & Nevada counties. The water that eventually flows into the Feather river right below Star Bend is retained at Camp Far West. Before that, it's retained in Lake Combie. Upstream from that, Rollins Lake. Above that, it comes out of Spaulding Reservoir. Abover that, the water is called Fordyce Creek and it comes out of Fordyce reservoir. Above that, it comes out of a million little seeps and trickles and snowmelt pools. And all along that route the deer, bear, birds, trout, and million other misc. animals draw from that river and stay alive through the hot summers because of it. I don't recall hearing about any major flooding (or deer drownings) on the Bear river... I wonder why? Oh, and it also produces electricity (Spaulding, Fordyce), recreation (every reservoir mentioned), and drinking water to tens of thousands of Californians before the rice farmers along the Feather draw it off to water their fields as well. Sound like an ecological nightmare to you?
High Sierras
hunter
 
Posts: 660
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:34 pm
Location: above the snow line most of the year

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Mon Feb 24, 2014 7:46 pm

Don't try to talk common sense to MM. He doesn't have any.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Butta boom » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:29 pm

Big surprise, the entire CVP is being paid for during this forty year contract period. Every acre foot of delivered water has the "capital component" surcharge added to it. This is like paying for your pickup every month, then finding out that the dealership is giving you another five years of payments. They are not going to hand over the project, even though we will have paid for it!

What is worse, they built Shasta without first obtaining the water rights. We signed a contract in 1964, and again in 2004, for 50 years we lived up to our end of the deal. We paid millions for water we did not not use, that was later resold down south.

Now they break the contract, and fifteen thousand acre feet a day leave the north, and go south, the so called health and safety water. The settlement contractors feel this is not consistent with our historic pattern of use, first in time first in right. Our hunger prevention water supports a great deal of habitat as well.

The only folks that will benefit will be the attorneys and the well drillers. Don't send your son to college, get him on a well drilling rig.
Butta boom
hunter
 
Posts: 412
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Mon Feb 24, 2014 8:30 pm

I'd say you listed how already the streams have multiple impoundments (means, many already)...and thinking you can just put in more without some serious process is a fools folly. Not even addressing land ownership issues. Habitat has been fragmented and built over destroying and isolating quite a few habitats already...you think just building more reservoirs and housing more people is a solution? I don't have the ability nor does anyone else to stop people from having sex and overpopulating. Such is the reward for having freedom and free will...I don't even hear a murmur about addressing these pressing future issues from ANYONE. I see a problem with no immediate solution until the chit really hits the fan...then like most folks knee jerk reaction it will probably be too little too late.

If you do not think deer, and waterfowl and upland habitat has been built over, fragmented and it has had a net negative effect of populations then talk to your grandfather or anyone else who has been around for more than one generation. Yeah they are still there with their ranks thinned allowing only token tags in some zones and how many people do you hear complaining here about the very thing I am talking about? So let's go ahead and thin them some more willy nilly right?

How many people are living right where you just suggested? I know because I used to live there within a mile of the bear river myself in Placer County and there were plenty of houses and house developments mighty closer to the river then mine. Try again...we already have over 1400 impoundments remember.

The CVP is a dynamic entity and it has ongoing costs for all of us. Not just once and done...all users have a stake and obligation to the mitigation.

http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/presskit/f ... ordid=3001
Last edited by marsh-mello on Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:25 am, edited 3 times in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Tommyo » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:45 pm

Excellent audition by marsh - mello . Hurry up - do nothing - wag a finger - bias the selection of data - rescue bambi - blame the other party for being knee jerk. This will be the framework of the pro twin tunnel strategy as best I can tell. :fingerhead: :fingerhead:
Find a way when there is no way.
Tommyo
hunter
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Mon Feb 24, 2014 9:57 pm

Tommyo wrote:Excellent audition by marsh - mello . Hurry up - do nothing - wag a finger - bias the selection of data - rescue bambi - blame the other party for being knee jerk. This will be the framework of the pro twin tunnel strategy as best I can tell. :fingerhead: :fingerhead:


You know all I am saying is that it isn't as easy simple and uncomplicated as some people would like to think and I am not the one blaming any party as you state, am I?

High Sierras wrote:And those ecosystems you talk about were shattered decades ago by humans and towns and houses and reservoirs and interstate highways. A few more dams aren't going to make the Sierra deer herd wander off into the Nevada desert looking for the good old days.


A "few deer" might not be the straw which breaks the camel back just representative there is a lot of other straw being thrown about and lying around. You're right, you said it, the ecosystems have been shattered so your solution is to just stick in another dagger and finish the job?

Yeah we have a water shortage because of an unprecendented drought...let's build lots more reservoirs...we can do it in lots of places :huh: As hunters I figure we have always been conservationist in the best sense of the word...in this case conserving is doing nothing? Really?

All this talk about being disgruntled about sending OUR water south...heck it has been part of the water development plan since the engineering studies in the 1920's read it yourself in the link below. Butta, it's easy to see, just wants his full share of his pie even though Mother nature has tripped and dropped it on the ground. Guess what we all are going to try and survive this year on just a taste and conservation and mitigation for EVERYONE is the order of the day.

Some of the preface as well as Chapter 7 are worth the read for any history buff.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_bo ... l_dams.pdf
Last edited by marsh-mello on Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Feb 24, 2014 10:39 pm

Butta boom wrote:Big surprise, the entire CVP is being paid for during this forty year contract period. Every acre foot of delivered water has the "capital component" surcharge added to it. This is like paying for your pickup every month, then finding out that the dealership is giving you another five years of payments. They are not going to hand over the project, even though we will have paid for it!

What is worse, they built Shasta without first obtaining the water rights. We signed a contract in 1964, and again in 2004, for 50 years we lived up to our end of the deal. We paid millions for water we did not not use, that was later resold down south.

Now they break the contract, and fifteen thousand acre feet a day leave the north, and go south, the so called health and safety water. The settlement contractors feel this is not consistent with our historic pattern of use, first in time first in right. Our hunger prevention water supports a great deal of habitat as well.

The only folks that will benefit will be the attorneys and the well drillers. Don't send your son to college, get him on a well drilling rig.


Oh man, that's rough. Do they have Darth Vader on their bargaining team or what, because it sounds like you guys got told, "I have altered our deal. Pray that I don't alter it any further.".
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Sac river water update

Postby marsh-mello » Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:47 am

Mallards Only wrote:Don't try to talk common sense to MM. He doesn't have any.


Again Mr Wizard the boom-a-rang factor is strong with this one. :lol3:

Why don't you just come clean and answer Slow's questions...you got something to hide which is driving your seemingly selfish, myopic and polarized position on these issues? The non answer can speak as loud as any answer at a certain juncture. Stand up straight and be a man and just admit or deny your complicity to being a benefactor to the government "programs". Do you own rice ground? Do you receive government payments of any sort? Pretty simple questions you've been "ducking" for quite sometime now.
Charter member of the "I only shoot bar belly geese club". I'm a Bar belly goose purist!
marsh-mello
hunter
 
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 1:30 pm

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:30 am

I'd rather have him thinking I'm making billions off people like him. I get way more satisfaction that way.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

Re: Sac river water update

Postby Mallards Only » Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:35 am

marsh-mello wrote:I'd say you listed how already the streams have multiple impoundments (means, many already)...and thinking you can just put in more without some serious process is a fools folly. Not even addressing land ownership issues. Habitat has been fragmented and built over destroying and isolating quite a few habitats already...you think just building more reservoirs and housing more people is a solution? I don't have the ability nor does anyone else to stop people from having sex and overpopulating. Such is the reward for having freedom and free will...I don't even hear a murmur about addressing these pressing future issues from ANYONE. I see a problem with no immediate solution until the chit really hits the fan...then like most folks knee jerk reaction it will probably be too little too late.

If you do not think deer, and waterfowl and upland habitat has been built over, fragmented and it has had a net negative effect of populations then talk to your grandfather or anyone else who has been around for more than one generation. Yeah they are still there with their ranks thinned allowing only token tags in some zones and how many people do you hear complaining here about the very thing I am talking about? So let's go ahead and thin them some more willy nilly right?

How many people are living right where you just suggested? I know because I used to live there within a mile of the bear river myself in Placer County and there were plenty of houses and house developments mighty closer to the river then mine. Try again...we already have over 1400 impoundments remember.

The CVP is a dynamic entity and it has ongoing costs for all of us. Not just once and done...all users have a stake and obligation to the mitigation.

http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/presskit/f ... ordid=3001

I suppose no habitat was destroyed when the Bay Area or LA, SD, Sacramento, and other huge metros were developed? Way more species were displaced and endangered by those developments than any dams. Maybe we should put a moratorium on any further urban sprawl. Then we wouldn't be consuming more natural resources than the state is equipped to handle. But no, that won't work. The left needs more freeloading voters to maintain their existence.
Mallards Only
hunter
 
Posts: 282
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 1:49 pm
Location: Chico, CA

PreviousNext

Return to California Duck Hunting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests