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.
No, wait, you're joking, right?
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.
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?