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.
Hardly. I listed one
river as a model of how it could be done and should be done if we want to do more than follow the “live with less” model the greenies demand. How many dams are on the Feather River? Three little ones at the headwaters of the Middle fork, and then over 30 miles until it arrives in Oroville? A handful of little ones on the north fork, primarily for hydro power? The Feather drains over 6,000 square miles of California. That alone suggests we could add a dam or two there.
The Yuba River? Between Downieville and Bullard’s Bar, there’s 20 miles of river. A series of smaller dams like Lake Clementine on the American could add a lot of storage there as well as flood prevention.
The Consumnes? None. The Mokuloume (besides Pardee and Comanche)? None on the main river, a handful on its tributaries. And together the Mokuloume and Consumnes drain over 2,143 square miles of the Golden State, and the Mokuloume is over 150 miles long… surely we could find room for a few small dams that would alleviate a little of the overburdened demands on the water supply there, no? I’m not talking about building mega reservoirs like Oroville or New Melones… but a series of smaller ones that would act together to add capacity and reduce the possibility of floods downstream. Heck, if you’re worried the deer will all run to the lake’s edge and throw themselves off in desperation of trying to find a route across other than swimming, we could add wildlife overcrossings.
marsh-mello wrote: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?
Urban sprawl has done a thousand times the fragmentation of habitat damage that reservoirs have, and without any of the positive side effects like reservoirs have. Trying to blame the eco-damage and vast deer drownings on dam building is akin to blaming private jet aircraft for all
the air pollution problems in California, it kills whatever credibility you had on the issue.
marsh-mello wrote: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.
I checked out the link you added regarding the list of the dams already in California. And with the exception of only 14 dams (predominantly built in Southern CA) on the list, or 1/10th of 1%
, ALL 1400
were all built before 1975… nearly forty years ago. Care to guess what the State of CA’s population was forty years ago? It was 19,953,134 in 1970. I couldn't find an accurate number for 1975, but let's say 21 million for giggles. The population is currently at >39,000,000, or just about double what it was back then. Do you seriously think the current water supply system was designed back then to provide an adequate water supply for double the demand back when built? Of course not, the engineers that built the existing infrastructure assumed we would not get stuck on stupid in the following 40 years and stop building to meet the current needs.
Bottom line, unless we add capacity to our water storage system, this state will die a slow economic death. That death will come faster if the global warming folks have it right and the Sierra snowpack mega-reservoir we’ve all become accustomed to and historically relied upon becomes a thing of the past. Capping California’s population is political suicide; no politician will ever seriously propose that. Without developing more water sources, and as more people consume the limited water available, the farmers (and the wildlife) will all be shoved aside so the voters can get a drink.
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.
Yeah we have a water shortage because of an unprecedented drought...let's build lots more reservoirs...we can do it in lots of places
As hunters I figure we have always been conservationist in the best sense of the word...in this case conserving is doing nothing? Really?
No, you’re the one proposing do nothing and hope the problem goes away on it's own, or at best you're advocating “Let’s all learn to live with less”.
Apparently I’m the radical whack job proposing we develop our water resources so we can do more than just sit around and watch the wildlife and our State’s economy die off for lack of a competent water supply.