Question:
Despite your feelings, the facts are that corporate farming is the biggest user of our water. You too have made an incorrect deduction. However, future water demands will be greater in many areas of California. New dams may be necessary though I doubt 57 is a reasonable expectation for the near furture. HOW ABOUT ADDRESSING MR. PENNY’S POTENTIAL BIAS AGAINST DAMS SINCE HIS AFFILIATION IN WHITE WATER RAFTING CONFLICTS WITH THE WATER NEEDS OF CALIFORNIA’S FUTURE…. Flood control is the real straw man here. Developer pressure to earn a fast buck have influenced government to allow residential development in flood plains without requiring the developers to foot the bill. People buy in flood plains and then demand that the rest of us save their investment at our cost. They even demand that the government subsidize flood insurance. This argument doesn’t float (no pun intended) because development in central California IS IN FLOOD PLAINS and has been for over a hundred years since the gold rush days. Some of these areas currently have better flood protection than others, all of which was paid by the tax payers at one time or another! IMHO developers are not free market capitalists. They demand the the "government get off their backs" by eliminating fees, taxes and building codes and then expect that same government (the taxpayers) to pay for police, fire, sewage, garbage, flood protection, fire protection and the like for their projects. Whatever your implication is here, it is definitely convoluted and undiscernable… Even the State Water Board has admitted that effective conservation will produce more water for California than dams will. Conservation is unpopular because is doesn’t make a profit for the big water users. The average residential user is not nearly as wasteful as agriculture or industry. Care to disclose this report since it sounds like bureaucratic number crunching to me???? LN PS- Care to discuss Mr. Penny’s dual membership and possible conflict of interest from being in both "Friends of the River" and "The American Whitewater Association"???
Response:
snip Nonether less the FACT is, Mr. Penny’s involvement in the AMERICAN WHITEWATER ASSOCIATION could be guiding his principles which just so happens to be "The Rest of The Story. To bad you don’t like people having THE FACTS, ALL THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS…. LN
Dear LN, Now that you have so boldly stated that you have the facts, just what facts might you be referring to? You didn’t present a damn thing. And if you accuse Mr. Penny of having an ulterior motive based on his associations and/or recreational preferences, why can’t we know your associations and what gets you off? Perhaps that might enlighten others and show how to get these so-called facts, too. Don Kellett Pine, CO a dedicated whitewater enthusiast and fact checker Maybe Mr. Penny’s dual membership is a coincidence. Also, maybe OJ was always innocent, and President Clinton has never been unfaithful to Hillary…. Nonetheless, I’m not the one lobbying against nor for dams though I do think they should always be considered as a viable option to any overall comprehensive water plan. 57 new ones, I would agree, does seem a bit extreme though… Try addressing, if you dare, Mr. Penny’s potential conflict of interest…. LN
Response:
But your name or occupation has EVERYTHING to do with the possibility that your motives are driven by self-centered interest of one sort or another. You question someone else’s motives while choosing to hide your own. In a word, you’re a hypocrite. But my occupation has nothing to do with dams or California water etc. You can surmise all the self serving interest you want but it just ain’t there. So besides my name & occupation being irrelevant to the argument at hand it’s NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!! Whereas Mr. Penny’s potential self-serving interest is obvious. I merely pointed out some missing facts, so maybe the truth just pisses you off! LN
Response:
But the FACT remains, my name or occupation has nothing to do with the possibly Mr. Penny’s motives (or yours for that matter) are driven by self-centered recreational interest, while not caring whether or not the rest California’s future water demands are met. Whether water is needed to grow crops & feed people or just provide communities down stream viable flood protection is obviously none of his nor your concerns. So be it.
But your name or occupation has EVERYTHING to do with the possibility that your motives are driven by self-centered interest of one sort or another. You question someone else’s motives while choosing to hide your own. In a word, you’re a hypocrite.
Response:
snip Nonether less the FACT is, Mr. Penny’s involvement in the AMERICAN WHITEWATER ASSOCIATION could be guiding his principles which just so happens to be "The Rest of The Story. To bad you don’t like people having THE FACTS, ALL THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS…. LN
Dear LN, Now that you have so boldly stated that you have the facts, just what facts might you be referring to? You didn’t present a damn thing. And if you accuse Mr. Penny of having an ulterior motive based on his associations and/or recreational preferences, why can’t we know your associations and what gets you off? Perhaps that might enlighten others and show how to get these so-called facts, too. Don Kellett Pine, CO a dedicated whitewater enthusiast and fact checker
Response:
I see, rather than qualify your own opinion by justifying your own objectivity, you simply throw this garbage out: I see you prefer utilizing a STRAW MAN argument intead of confronting Mr Penny’s ulterior motives. The ole switch "Switch Bait", "Throw a Few Ad Hominem Attacks" hoping they stick and steer the argument in another direction. But the FACT remains, my name or occupation has nothing to do with the possibly Mr. Penny’s motives (or yours for that matter) are driven by self-centered recreational interest, while not caring whether or not the rest California’s future water demands are met. Whether water is needed to grow crops & feed people or just provide communities down stream viable flood protection is obviously none of his nor your concerns. So be it.
So I see that your main concern is water for growing crops. Are you a farmer? Seems you have an ulterior motive for seeking more dams. Farmers already recieve most of California’s water at cut-rate prices. Additionally, they constantly seek more in order to increase their own bottom line. I don’t have a personal problem with farmers – my family includes hard working farm folks in Kansas. I have a problem with irresponsible farm practices which occur in California. The fact is that the number of rivers in CA is finite. Once they are drowned they are gone. Water is a renewable resource. If we use it wisely instead of dumping it on a desert we wouldn’t need to create more dams and destroy what few rivers we have left. Nonether less the FACT is, Mr. Penny’s involvement in the AMERICAN WHITEWATER ASSOCIATION could be guiding his principles which just so happens to be "The Rest of The Story. To bad you don’t like people having THE FACTS, ALL THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS….
Your presumed interest in farming could be guiding your principles which are "The Other Half of The Story". Too bad you don’t like people having all THE FACTS, ALL THE FACTS, and all the facts people like you don’t want the public to hear. You don’t want people to know how wastefull industrial agriculture is. You don’t want people to know how much water you waste. You don’t want people to know your name and occupation because they will see your attacks on Mr. Penny as self-serving and not in the best interests of California’s people. My Name: John Lester My Occupation: Graduate Student Researcher (Lyme Disease – NOT Environmentally Related) My Bias: River Protection since I enjoy them as a hiker, rock climber, kayaker, and amateur naturalist.
Response:
With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are we going to get the water? Stop watering golf courses and lawns.
Certainly this makes sense. Most Californians use grass such as Marathon which is more of a weed than grass. It is hard and prickly, but doesn’t require the kind of watering that nice Kentucky bluegrass needs. During drought years we do quit watering our lawns. I don’t know about golf courses. Presumably many of the owners are rich country club folks who can afford to buy extra water at any price. Build better toilets that don’t waste 5 gallons each time you visit it.
California probably has a higher percentage of low-flow toilets of any state in the US (and maybe in the world). Most towns have programs that basically pay you to switch to low flow. Nobody in my whole family has an old-style toilet. In the drought of the 80’s we were encouraged to use the toilets repeatedly without flushing unless we had a #2. This while farmers were still watering the desert. In other words, don’t waste what you have.
I totally agree! John Lester
Response:
With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are we going to get the water? Stop watering golf courses and lawns. Build better toilets that don’t waste 5 gallons each time you visit it. In other words, don’t waste what you have.
Though I neither golf nor own a home with a lawn, I know plenty of golfers and home owners that would argue with you on whether watering golf courses or lawns was a waste of water. And even if you could magically get those people that love those things to stop doing it, what would be the point? Just so we could have twice as many people living here at half the quality of life? I’d rather we had half the number of people, with more space for those here to live. So how about, lets not build 57 new dams, and not have another 33 million people move here? Let’s reduce the population (via only naturally politically correct attrition rates and emigration), and by maybe 2050 we might be able to see places like Hetch Hetchy, and Glen Canyon returned to their natural state. Remember that Talking Heads song? "There was a shopping mall Now it’s all covered with flowers" So behind door number 1 we have billions and billions of people living in miserable, unsustainable squaller; behind door number 2 we have fewer happly folks living in sustainable harmony. Which door into the future do you choose? John Watson NASA Ames Research Center http://george.arc.nasa.gov/~watson HOMEBREW NAKED!
Response:
During the water shortage in California they had a saying, "If is yellow let it mellow, if its brown flush it." Unfortunately many people attached the saying to Governor Brown. :-) Agriculture has many ways to reduce water consumption, but won’t do any thing until they are forced to. — -Ernie Harrison Remove NOSPAM to send E-mail GO TO http://users.ccnet.com/~emh FOR TRAVEL TIE BOX PLANS – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are we going to get the water? Stop watering golf courses and lawns. Certainly this makes sense. Most Californians use grass such as Marathon which is more of a weed than grass. It is hard and prickly, but doesn’t require the kind of watering that nice Kentucky bluegrass needs. During drought years we do quit watering our lawns. I don’t know about golf courses. Presumably many of the owners are rich country club folks who can afford to buy extra water at any price. Build better toilets that don’t waste 5 gallons each time you visit it. California probably has a higher percentage of low-flow toilets of any state in the US (and maybe in the world). Most towns have programs that basically pay you to switch to low flow. Nobody in my whole family has an old-style toilet. In the drought of the 80’s we were encouraged to use the toilets repeatedly without flushing unless we had a #2. This while farmers were still watering the desert. In other words, don’t waste what you have. I totally agree! John Lester
Response:
I am not a golfer, but all the CITY courses in LA do use LA River water, and there is a plan to start using more reclaimed water in industry. But I dont think the public quite "buys into" the reclaimed water on their lawns in LA. And building the infrastructure…I mean, LA has to replace its regular pipes as it is…..laying a second set for reclaimed water? hmmmm Karl
Response:
57 NEW OR ENLARGED DAMS PROPOSED IN CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN! A Sampler Of Rivers & Watersheds Threatened By The State Water Plan: [many rivers & watersheds deleted]
This didn’t even include the Kaweah. I just got a Draft EIS describing a plan to raise Terminus reservoir, flooding Washing Machine (class IV) and a nice class II run below Three Rivers. The Holiday Inn would get bought out because its back yard would become ugly reservoir. The Kaweah project seems like a waste of money– it would be far cheaper to dredge the reservoir each fall, which would provide much-needed gravel for downstream developments.
Response:
On a somewhat related note: Anyone else read Cadillac Desert? Or have the stunning experience of looking at a map of the west, and seeing how many "lakes" are in fact created by dams?
Response:
I see, rather than qualify your own opinion by justifying your own objectivity, you simply throw this garbage out: That depends on your perception. Evidently your saying someone’s occupation is a SOLE basis for qualifying their opinion. Additionally, you’re all to willing to dismiss Mr. Penny’s duplicitious affiliations with both "Friends of the River" and the "American Whitewater Association" when the implications of his BIAS are very apparent. So I see that your main concern is water for growing crops. Are you a farmer? I do think there are growing needs for additional food for California & the world at large. And YES you’ve found me out; I am a farmer. I grow crops on approximately 0.010573 acres or more notably understood as 450 square feet of land. I also utilize drip irrigation and conservation techniques to maximizing yield. There are herbs (legal ones) hanging about in pots to add to the variety. Seems you have an ulterior motive for seeking more dams. Seeking more dams?!?! Did I say that? Just because I pointed out Mr. Penny’s potential BIAS in no way implies I’m for 57 more dams. On the other hand, dams should be an option when determining overall future water needs and flood control options. Farmers already recieve most of California’s water at cut-rate prices. Good point, I’d like to pay more at the grocery store too! I have a problem with irresponsible farm practices which occur in California. You’ve stated facts that are not in evidence. First show/prove all farmers are wasting water. Since they do pay for water, subsidized or not, while thinking of their bottom line, logic would dictate using only that water which is needed would likely make the most sense when trying to make more profits. Also, due to recent past drought years, most farmers have had to learn how to trim back water usage, not to mention many are currently utilizing ground water sources. The fact is that the number of rivers in CA is finite. Once they are drowned they are gone. Which also means less Whitewater Rafting, huh? Water is a renewable resource. If we use it wisely instead of dumping it on a desert we wouldn’t need to create more dams and destroy what few rivers we have left. Imply this as much as you want, but I’m not for irrigating additonal regions (especially deserts) which are currently not being farmed. However, you seem to be for not providing water to farmers, so as to have more recreation for elitist white water rafters! Your presumed interest in farming could be guiding your principles which are "The Other Half of The Story". Again wrong! See above, since your key board seems to be caught in an infinite loop! Too bad you don’t like people having all THE FACTS, ALL THE FACTS, and all the facts people like you don’t want the public to hear. You don’t want people to know how wastefull industrial agriculture is. You don’t want people to know how much water you waste. Noticably, you’ve conveniently avoided addressing THE FACTS THAT Mr. Penny’s has duplicitious interest which just may have self-serving ramifications. These are THE relevant possibilities HERE which you will not address… WHY? You don’t want people to know your name and occupation because they will see your attacks on Mr. Penny as self-serving and not in the best interests of California’s people. Nice try, but won’t work. Suffice to say though, I derive no income in any manner want so ever from water storage dams, and my job would probably be boring by your standards. Then again I’m not the one LOBBYING AGAINST DAMS WHOSE INTEREST LIES IN AREAS OTHER THAN THAT WHICH I ARGUE! My Name: John Lester Nice name! My Occupation: Graduate Student Researcher (Lyme Disease – NOT Environmentally Related) That’s a great occupation. I’m sure you worked very hard to achieve your goals! My Bias: River Protection since I enjoy them as a hiker, rock climber, kayaker, and amateur naturalist. Though I’ve never done any white water rafting, I may try it some day. However, always have enjoyed nature in all its splendor…. LN
Response:
One must question if Mr. Penny’s allegiance to two masters represents a conflict of interest here??
<snip Nonether less the FACT is, Mr. Penny’s involvement in the AMERICAN WHITEWATER ASSOCIATION could be guiding his principles which just so happens to be "The Rest of The Story. To bad you don’t like people having THE FACTS, ALL THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS…. LN
I’ve lived in California since 1958. I’ve seen the explosion of marginally profitable agriculture in many areas. These expansion would not occur if farmers weren’t given virtually free water in addition to price supports and payments not to plant crops. Despite your feelings, the facts are that corporate farming is the biggest user of our water. Also, our water use is inherently wasteful. Farmers pay only for water that actually reaches their fields so they have no reason to install piping to replace open earthen ditches which loose at least half the water that enters them. Rice farmers are probably the worst wasters of water. Flood control is the real straw man here. Developer pressure to earn a fast buck have influenced government to allow residential development in flood plains without requiring the developers to foot the bill. People buy in flood plains and then demand that the rest of us save their investment at our cost. They even demand that the government subsidize flood insurance. IMHO developers are not free market capitalists. They demand the the "government get off their backs" by eliminating fees, taxes and building codes and then expect that same government (the taxpayers) to pay for police, fire, sewage, garbage, flood protection, fire protection and the like for their projects. Even the State Water Board has admitted that effective conservation will produce more water for California than dams will. Conservation is unpopular because is doesn’t make a profit for the big water users. The average residential user is not nearly as wasteful as agriculture or industry.
Response:
One must question if Mr. Penny’s allegiance to two masters represents a conflict of interest here?? POSSIBLY MR. PENNY’S LOVE FOR RECREATION OF WHITE WATER RAFTING CLOUDS HIS OBJECTIVITY?? I hope you are not suggesting that people who enjoy rivers should not be involved in protecting them from dams. Perhaps you would like to join me on the Stanislaus Camp Nine run? Oh wait, I shouldn’t be allowed to be sarcastic because I’m a kayaker and therefore have no objectivity according to you. Richard is just trying to get the word out that 57 portions of rivers are threatened by the proposals in this water plan. I see from your post that you unlike Richard (who put the info that he is part of FOR in his SIG) do not put your real name on your post. Are you involved in industrial rice farming? Are you a developer? Is your name Richard Pombo? Perhaps it is you that lacks objectivity. Put your name and occupation in YOUR post and we might take you seriously. -John Lester Whitewater Kayaker and OBJECTIVE dam opponent I see you prefer utilizing a STRAW MAN argument intead of confronting Mr Penny’s ulterior motives. The ole switch "Switch Bait", "Throw a Few Ad Hominem Attacks" hoping they stick and steer the argument in another direction. But the FACT remains, my name or occupation has nothing to do with the possibly Mr. Penny’s motives (or yours for that matter) are driven by self-centered recreational interest, while not caring whether or not the rest California’s future water demands are met. Whether water is needed to grow crops & feed people or just provide communities down stream viable flood protection is obviously none of his nor your concerns. So be it. Nonether less the FACT is, Mr. Penny’s involvement in the AMERICAN WHITEWATER ASSOCIATION could be guiding his principles which just so happens to be "The Rest of The Story. To bad you don’t like people having THE FACTS, ALL THE FACTS AND NOTHING BUT THE FACTS…. LN
Response:
URGENT ALERT! 57 NEW OR ENLARGED DAMS PROPOSED IN CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN! The California Department of Water Resources has recently released the California State Water Plan Update, Bulletin 160-98. The report presents a statewide overview of current water management activities and provides recommendations to policy-makers and water managers for fulfilling the state’s supposed demand for water through the year 2020. As drafted, the California Water Plan is one of the most substantial and expansive threats to California’s rivers and watersheds. Its wide-ranging impacts have not been researched or documented except in select, localized instances. It advocates the single largest and most destructive public works project currently under consideration in the United States. The Department of Water Resources identifies 43 new dams and reservoirs and 14 enlarged dams and reservoirs. These proposals would destroy many of the rivers and watersheds that other state and federal agencies, community groups and property owners are working to protect and restore. The Water Plan proposals would force the condemnation of thousands of acres of public and private property, including wildlife areas, small communities, farms and businesses. The implementation of the Water Plan would lead to the inundation of many of the last spawning areas for endangered salmon and steelhead, as well as loss of critical habitat for many other fish, wildlife, and plant species threatened with extinction. Reduced stream flows resulting from the new or enlarged dams would compound these destructive effects on fish and wildlife. State taxpayers would shoulder the burden for billions of dollars in costs to implement the California Water Plan. The Plan would force current California residents to subsidize water for agribusiness and new development. The Plan proposes to tap the state’s remaining groundwater reserves, with little or no legal controls to ensure that aquifers are not depleted. The 600 page Water Plan gives short shrift to water conservation, proposing instead to dry up our rivers in order to increase consumption. The Department of Water Resources should go back to the drawing board and propose real water conservation and recycling efforts. State bureaucrats use a flawed and simplistic methodology to predict future water demand, without adequately considering more effective use of existing supplies or changes in societal needs. The Department of Water Resources should make a real assessment of future water demand. As proposed, the California Water Plan is an ill-conceived and dangerous document that neither solves California’s water problems nor proposes appropriate solutions. What You Can Do: Let the Department of Water Resources know how you feel about the protection of California rivers! Write your letter today. You can send your written comments on the California Water Plan by March 30, 1998 to: Jeanine Jones, Chief, Statewide Planning Branch, Department of Water Resources, P.O. Box 942836, Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 For more information, or to find out how you can get involved, call Maureen Rose or Traci Sheehan at Friends of the River at 916-442-3155 (ext. 223 or 222 respectively). To see a full copy of the California Water Plan on-line, go to: http: //rubicon.water.ca.gov./pdintro.html or order a copy of the Water Plan: Paul Hutton, Chief, Resources Evaluation Section at (916) 653-5666 A Sampler Of Rivers & Watersheds Threatened By The State Water Plan: American River: Predictably, the water plan enthusiastically pushes the dam builders’ holy grail in California — the massive 500 foot-high Auburn dam, which would drown up to 48 miles of the North and Middle Forks of the American River, hundreds of historic sites, and 10,000 acres of undeveloped foothill wildlands which provide outdoor recreation for more than a half-million people annually. Never mind that the proposed dam site is located on an extensive system of earthquake faults. Cache Creek: State water engineers propose to build up to three dams and reservoirs on Cache Creek in the Coast Range. The dams would drown thousands of acres of bald eagle and tule elk habitat recently acquired by state and federal agencies, as well as portions of two state highways and a segment of Cache Creek increasingly popular for whitewater boating, hiking, and wildlife viewing. Carmel River: Local taxpayers have already voted down funding for the proposed New Los Padres dam and reservoir on the Carmel River, but the state bureaucrats seem to think that state taxpayers may want to foot the bill for the project which will inundate public recreation areas adjacent to the Ventana Wilderness. Cosumnes River: No one has ever been able to make the proposed Nashville dam on the Cosumnes River pencil out economically, but that doesn’t deter the state water engineers. Neither does the fact that the Cosumnes remains the only undammed river in the Sierra Nevada or that the Nashville reservoir would require the relocation of historic Highway 49 and the tiny hamlet of Nashville. Cottonwood Creek: One of the largest undeveloped tributaries of the Sacramento River watershed, the various forks of Cottonwood Creek have been targeted in the plan for up to five dams and reservoirs. Critical habitat for the endangered spring run chinook salmon and thousands of acres of oak woodland habitat would be destroyed by these dams and reservoirs. Mokelumne River: Not only do state engineers think enlarging the existing Camanche and Pardee dams may be a good idea, they propose two new projects on the Mokelumne River which other agencies have already discovered are uneconomical — the Middle Bar and Devils Nose dams. Any or all of these projects would drown miles of river already providing hydropower, essential fish and wildlife habitat, and outstanding recreation opportunities. Pescadero Creek: This proposed new dam and reservoir would drown a portion of San Mateo County’s Pescadero Creek Redwood Park, displace numerous homes and businesses, and dewater one of the most important coastal estuaries south of San Francisco Bay. Sacramento River: State bureaucrats want to take a new look at enlarging Shasta dam and reservoir — a costly proposition which would drown miles of wild trout habitat and outstanding recreational values along the upper Sacramento, McCloud, and Pit rivers, as well as require the relocation of Interstate 5, the Union Pacific Railroad, several small communities. The Plan also proposes to divert water from the lower Sacramento River for several "off stream" water storage reservoirs in the Sacramento Valley. The water diversions could have a devastating impact on the Sacramento River’s endangered salmon and steelhead populations. San Joaquin River: Enlarging the existing Friant dam and reservoir is proposed in the Plan, despite the fact that it would drown the popular Millerton Lake State Recreation Area, hundreds of acres of federally managed public lands, an increasingly popular whitewater recreation run, and a PG&E hydroelectric project. Santa Ana River: Reoperating the existing Prado flood control dam in Riverside County to store water for consumptive purposes would drown hundreds of acres of riparian habitat for the endangered Least Bell’s Vireo and Yellow Billed Cuckoo. Yuba River: State engineers dust off the old plans to build the Parks Bar dam on the Yuba River even though several previous studies have determined the project to be economically infeasible. In a variation on this theme, the bureaucrats also propose the Waldo project, which would divert water from the Yuba River and store it in an "off stream" reservoir covering most of the Spenceville Wildlife Refuge and a toxic mine site. If these projects are built, kiss the Yuba’s remaining salmon runs goodbye. — Richard Penny * Development Director * Friends of the River 128 J St., 2nd Floor * Sacramento, CA 95814 * 916-442-3155 (voice)
Response:
With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are we going to get the water?
Stop watering golf courses and lawns. Build better toilets that don’t waste 5 gallons each time you visit it. In other words, don’t waste what you have.
Response:
One must question if Mr. Penny’s allegiance to two masters represents a conflict of interest here?? POSSIBLY MR. PENNY’S LOVE FOR RECREATION OF WHITE WATER RAFTING CLOUDS HIS OBJECTIVITY??
I hope you are not suggesting that people who enjoy rivers should not be involved in protecting them from dams. Perhaps you would like to join me on the Stanislaus Camp Nine run? Oh wait, I shouldn’t be allowed to be sarcastic because I’m a kayaker and therefore have no objectivity according to you. Richard is just trying to get the word out that 57 portions of rivers are threatened by the proposals in this water plan. I see from your post that you unlike Richard (who put the info that he is part of FOR in his SIG) do not put your real name on your post. Are you involved in industrial rice farming? Are you a developer? Is your name Richard Pombo? Perhaps it is you that lacks objectivity. Put your name and occupation in YOUR post and we might take you seriously. -John Lester Whitewater Kayaker and OBJECTIVE dam opponent
Response:
: : URGENT ALERT! : : 57 NEW OR ENLARGED DAMS : PROPOSED IN CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN! One thing… just to be fair here… I think there are 57 new or enlarged dams that were "retained" by the plan as options… that is, these were the options that were not dismissed outright. The options that were retained were scored on various criteria (environmental effects, economic factors, political factors) and ranked. I don’t think they suggest that ALL the options be implemented. — Dave
Response:
URGENT ALERT! 57 NEW OR ENLARGED DAMS PROPOSED IN CALIFORNIA WATER PLAN! snip Richard Penny * Development Director * Friends of the River 128 J St., 2nd Floor* Sacramento, CA 95814 * 916-442-3155 (voice) One must question if Mr. Penny’s allegiance to two masters represents a conflict of interest here?? POSSIBLY MR. PENNY’S LOVE FOR RECREATION OF WHITE WATER RAFTING CLOUDS HIS OBJECTIVITY?? See the following web sites & you decide!!! http://www.valpro.com/bethere/img0381.htm http://www.valpro.com/bethere/img0398.htm http://foxtrot.rahul.net/awa/awa/awa_people.html http://www.awa.org/awa/river_project/California/MercedNFork.html http://www3.us.com/awa/awa/river_project/California/Cataracts.html LN
Response:
Karl Dahlquist wrote With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are we going to get the water? This cross-post smacks of environmental wacko propaganda…. perhaps we should just kill the new people.
Good idea! — -dnc-
Response:
: With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are : we going to get the water? : : This cross-post smacks of environmental wacko propaganda…. : : perhaps we should just kill the new people. Something like 80% of California’s water is used for irrigation. Rapid growth of California’s population could be easily handled by existing water projects were it not for extremely inefficient use of subsidized water by agriculture. You can soak up just about any amount of water by converting desert into rice paddies. Current California water distribution policy is neither economically nor environmentally sound. — Dave Hinds
Response:
: With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are : we going to get the water? : This cross-post smacks of environmental wacko propaganda…. : perhaps we should just kill the new people. Gee. i dunno, maybe we could stop growing rice in the middle a desert? Or maybe we could pay market rates for water? Naw, I forget, government subsidies for corporate farmers are a GOOD thing. My tax dollars at work…
Response:
With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are we going to get the water? This cross-post smacks of environmental wacko propaganda…. perhaps we should just kill the new people. Karl
Response:
With the rapid growth of California in terms of population, where else are we going to get the water?
Start charging farmers and residents the same rates? | PP-SEL, N5WVR |