Plan for large state reservoir gets big boost

[Auggie]

The effort to build California’s largest new reservoir in decades has received a welcome commitment of cash — nearly $220 million — which will help keep the project on track to break ground as soon as next year.

SNIP

The California Water Commission, a state advisory board, decided on the bond allocations at its regular monthly meeting Wednesday. Two other water projects, a groundwater banking program in Kern County and a combined water treatment-groundwater facility in the Inland Empire, were awarded lesser amounts of the bond funds.

SNIP

The 13-mile-long Sites Reservoir, if built, would be the biggest reservoir constructed in California since New Melones Lake in Calaveras and Tuolumne counties in 1978. The project would expand water storage in preparation for a potentially hotter, drier future.

The new facility would hold up to 1.5 million acre-feet of water, enough to supply more than 3 million households annually. Perched across a sparsely populated valley where cattle now graze, it would be the eighth largest reservoir in California.

Story (paywall): https://www.sfchronicle.com/california/article/sites-reservoir-funds-20823190.php

According to the link, the biggest beneficiaries of the new reservoir look to be as follow:

• The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which is providing most of the funding

• Tri-Valley’s Zone 7 Water Agency (Bay Area)

• Santa Clara Valley Water District

• The federal government

Several groups and tribes oppose granting the water rights, saying the project could potentially hurt salmon runs and degrade water quality downstream.

[quaint]

1. Mixed feelings.

We definitely need more water storage. I question one huge reservoir which I assume will not be covered.
Just my uninformed opinion.

[Auggie]

2. I know ...

I look at reservoirs as I hope our water commissions do -- as just one piece of the puzzle.

Conservation, recycling, desalination, aquifer restoration, drought-tolerant landscaping, reservoirs -- the sum of all meet the need for the next 50 years. Farmers would fight this, but we need a smart plan for ag as well, like a cap on just how much water-hoarding cash crops like almonds and rice can be planted.

[quaint]

3. You are so right.

Why aren't those with the power as smart as you!

[Auggie]

6. LOL

Don’t you know I’m a socialist libtard?

[quaint]

8. Me, too.

Got pizza'd as antiquie, got back into grace through under-the-bridge amnesty!

[JoseBalow]

4. Wasn't a dam recently removed in Northern California?

I know it's a regional as well as a state-wide concern, and there's a lot of water being moved all around the state, sometimes over long distances, and not always very efficiently. I wonder if different policies and priorities are working against each other. The last drought ended just a couple of years ago, and I worry about the inevitable next one. I think a conservation policy needs to be a full-time and broader concern, and not based on shorter-term considerations.

[Auggie]

5. I believe so, but that wasn't that vital to a salmon run ...

plus myriads of other ecosystems downstream? I guess one can exchange priorities as needed. Maybe not.

The one in the OP was funded primarily by SoCal ag interests. And that brings immediately to mind the multi-billionaire Resnick farming operation, owners of the Wonderful brand of pistachios. If they didn’t contribute to funding they sure in hell lobbied for it.

[JoseBalow]

7. So many competing interests

It's hard to decide sometimes which interests are more or less important. All I know is that corporate profits are always at the bottom of my list.

[PufPuf23]

11. The Klamath dams were removed primarily for salmon habitat restoration and Native American cultural recovery.

From Copilot:

The Klamath River dam removal project, the largest of its kind in U.S. history, has successfully removed four hydroelectric dams, restoring vital salmon habitats and improving the river's ecosystem.

Overview of the Project

The Klamath River Renewal Project involved the removal of four hydroelectric dams: JC Boyle, Copco No. 1, Copco No. 2, and Iron Gate. This project was initiated to restore the river's natural flow and improve habitat for endangered fish species, particularly salmon. The removal process was completed ahead of schedule, with significant ecological restoration efforts already underway.

Environmental Impact

The removal of these dams has opened up over 400 miles of habitat for salmon and other aquatic species for the first time in more than a century. This restoration is crucial for the recovery of salmon populations, which have been severely impacted by the dams blocking their spawning routes. The project is expected to enhance water quality and reduce temperatures, creating a healthier environment for fish and other wildlife.

Community and Tribal Involvement

Local tribes, including the Yurok and Karuk, have been instrumental in advocating for the dam removals, viewing it as a restoration of their cultural heritage and a vital step towards ecological balance. Tribal leaders have expressed gratitude for the opportunity to restore traditional fishing practices and improve the health of the river.

Ongoing Restoration Efforts

Following the dam removals, restoration crews are working on 2,200 acres of formerly submerged lands to restore native vegetation and improve the overall ecosystem. This work is expected to continue for several years as the river and its surrounding environment recover from the impacts of the dams.

[PufPuf23]

10. Four dams were removed from the Klamath.

These older dams were primarily built for electricity and not for water storage.

https://klamathrenewal.org/the-project/

[CoopersDad]

9. Article without paywall, link below:

Thanks, Auggie.

https://archive.ph/nOGJL

I remember when New Melones wasn't yet built and then it was there.
In high school we had lots of fun on the river, and looking for caves.
It' "cave country" on USGS maps.

[PufPuf23]

12. I am personally against the proposed Sites Reservoir.

I am categorically against any major water capture development in California.

Why?

Increased water capture is for urban areas and monied interests when the encompassing environmental problem is human population and footprint on the natural world.

I support more efficient use / conservation of fresh water.