General Stewardship Discussion : American Whitewater Forums
San Joaquin River: Temperance Flat Dam proposals
Posted by: pmartzen (IP Logged)
Date: December 23, 2006 08:29PM
The Temperance Flat dam project is a proposed large storage reservoir on the San Joaquin River in the central Sierra Nevada of California. This topic is intended to provide links to background information and current news.
If built, the project will flood these whitewater river sections:
[www.americanwhitewater.org] Patterson Bend
[www.americanwhitewater.org] Squaw Leap
[www.americanwhitewater.org] Millerton Bottoms
The largest and most desired of the proposals would also flood:
[www.americanwhitewater.org] Horseshoe Bend
The land that would be flooded is a combination of private range land and public BLM land which is a popular recreation area:
[www.blm.gov]
Information about ongoing studies conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation are at:
[www.usbr.gov]
Despite unfavorable economics of this project, it has a lot of support in the local area. Most politicians in the San Joaquin valley region and the local Fresno Bee newspaper have expressed support for this new dam. Congressman Devin Nunes (rep. Bakersfield) has been spearheading efforts to get this dam funded.
[www.house.gov]
[www.house.gov]
Governor Schwarzenegger may propose to use state money to fund this or other dams, in January of 2007.
[www.fresnobee.com]
Lloyd Carter is Director of "Revive the San Joaquin"
[www.revivethesanjoaquin.org]
and one of the most knowledgeable locals on issues related to the San Joaquin River. Here he posts a brief overview of the downsides of the project.
[www.fresnobeehive.com]
If built, the project will flood these whitewater river sections:
[www.americanwhitewater.org] Patterson Bend
[www.americanwhitewater.org] Squaw Leap
[www.americanwhitewater.org] Millerton Bottoms
The largest and most desired of the proposals would also flood:
[www.americanwhitewater.org] Horseshoe Bend
The land that would be flooded is a combination of private range land and public BLM land which is a popular recreation area:
[www.blm.gov]
Information about ongoing studies conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation are at:
[www.usbr.gov]
Despite unfavorable economics of this project, it has a lot of support in the local area. Most politicians in the San Joaquin valley region and the local Fresno Bee newspaper have expressed support for this new dam. Congressman Devin Nunes (rep. Bakersfield) has been spearheading efforts to get this dam funded.
[www.house.gov]
[www.house.gov]
Governor Schwarzenegger may propose to use state money to fund this or other dams, in January of 2007.
[www.fresnobee.com]
Lloyd Carter is Director of "Revive the San Joaquin"
[www.revivethesanjoaquin.org]
and one of the most knowledgeable locals on issues related to the San Joaquin River. Here he posts a brief overview of the downsides of the project.
[www.fresnobeehive.com]
Re: San Joaquin River: Temperance Flat Dam proposals
Posted by: pmartzen (IP Logged)
Date: January 18, 2007 01:18AM
State Senate Bill 59 was introduced into the California Senate on January 11, 2007
[www.leginfo.ca.gov]
It was introduced by Senator Cogdill with a number of cosponsors. The main aim of the bill is to provide 2 billion dollars for the construction of large new dams at Sites near the Sacramento river, and/or at Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin river. An additional 1.95 billion dollars would go to various other water related projects. If the two named dam projects are deemed infeasible then the 2 billion dollars would go to some other reservoir project.
82030 (c)
(1) Two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) for the design,
acquisition, and construction of surface water storage projects
82031 (a)
(1) Sites Reservoir located in the Counties of Colusa and Glenn,
(2) Temperance Flat Reservoir located in the Counties of Fresno
and Madera
The additional 1.95 billion dollars could go to a wide range of unnamed, sounds good type of water projects. One option seemed particularly interesting
Section 82031 (b) (3) Replacement of water supplies that were previously committed or that will be committed for environmental benefits.
On the San Joaquin river, Friant dam allows 100% of the San Joaquin to be diverted or pumped out for agricultural and urban use in most years and for most of the time in all years. Meaning the river goes completely dry for long sections most of the time. Obviously no fish can live in a dry river. The San Joaquin was once a major salmon river, but now salmon are extinct there. Yet state law mandates that any dam must maintain a healthy river and good fishery downstream of that dam. Friant dam does not do that and when it was built the feds said it did not need to do that. Nearly 20 years ago environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation and Friant Water users to force Friant to release enough water to keep the river alive and to allow the reintroduction of Salmon. Slowly, very slowly, the Natural Resources Defense Council was winning that lawsuit.
Finally, in 2006, under pressure from senators and congressmen the Friant Water Users agreed to a settlement that will eventually allow between 10% and 15% of the rivers natural flow back into the dewatered stream. This will allow the San Joaquin to once again flow all the way to the Delta and to San Fransisco Bay all year long. Hopefully this will also allow Salmon to once again swim up the San Joaquin to spawn, by the year 2013.
[www.savethesanjoaquin.org]
[www.nrdc.org]
[www.revivethesanjoaquin.org]
Naturally that 10% to 15% of the rivers flow will have to be given up by the farmers who have been using and profiting from it for the last 60 years. Just as naturally, they do not want to give up that water and if they do, they want the state to replace it. It is hard to tell by the language of the bill, but that replacement might be for free.
Presently the partial restoration of the San Joaquin River will come from existing facilities. It is not contingent on new dams. New storage at Temperance Flat should stand on its own merits and be paid for fully by those who use the water stored there.
This part of the bill could apply to many other similar situations and rivers as well, where water users are profiting at the expense of the environment and are now being forced to make reparations and repairs.
In reading SB 59, it is not exactly clear how the bond will be repaid other than the money will come out of the State General Fund. Cost sharing is also confusing.
From section 82033 (a) Using the funds is dependant on:
(2) Development of a comprehensive financing plan for the
project that includes the state’s cost share for the project benefits
described in subdivision (b), any cost sharing by the federal
government for federal interests identified in the project, and any
other state or local public agency or private cost share for water
supply, power generation, or other benefits generated by the
project. The comprehensive financing plan shall allocate all project
costs among all project beneficiaries in relation to the benefits
received. The state’s cost share for the project benefits described
in subdivision (b) shall not exceed 50 percent of the total project
costs for projects funded under this chapter.
(3) Agreements with potential water users to contract and pay
for not less than 75 percent of the agricultural and urban water
supply benefits of the project.
On the face this sounds financially sound, but there may be a lot of fudge room. Water supply is the obvious primary benefit. But will water users pay for 75% of the cost of the stored water, or will they pay for 75% of the water at what ever subsidized cost they can work out. Either way it appears that 25% of some cost can be subsidized. But if we say that a big benefit is flood control, then the state and feds can pick up a bigger percentage of the total cost, even though the actual beneficiaries are developers who build in the flood plains, and obviously the water users. If you can say that recreation, environment, flood control and other creative ideas get big benefits then maybe you can reduce the supposed benefits and cost to the water users down to a very low, and attractive level.
Here are some more related links, some in favor of dams, some against.
State Senator Dave Cogdill press release
About senate bill 59
[republican.sen.ca.gov]
Chico Enterprise article
[www.friendsoftheriver.org]
Friends of the River press room articles
[www.friendsoftheriver.org]
Planning & Conservation League; water strategy
[www.pcl.org]
Revive the San Joaquin
[www.revivethesanjoaquin.org]
Save the San Joaquin
[www.savethesanjoaquin.org]
Fresno Bee editorial in favor of new dams
[www.fresnobee.com]
[www.leginfo.ca.gov]
It was introduced by Senator Cogdill with a number of cosponsors. The main aim of the bill is to provide 2 billion dollars for the construction of large new dams at Sites near the Sacramento river, and/or at Temperance Flat on the San Joaquin river. An additional 1.95 billion dollars would go to various other water related projects. If the two named dam projects are deemed infeasible then the 2 billion dollars would go to some other reservoir project.
82030 (c)
(1) Two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) for the design,
acquisition, and construction of surface water storage projects
82031 (a)
(1) Sites Reservoir located in the Counties of Colusa and Glenn,
(2) Temperance Flat Reservoir located in the Counties of Fresno
and Madera
The additional 1.95 billion dollars could go to a wide range of unnamed, sounds good type of water projects. One option seemed particularly interesting
Section 82031 (b) (3) Replacement of water supplies that were previously committed or that will be committed for environmental benefits.
On the San Joaquin river, Friant dam allows 100% of the San Joaquin to be diverted or pumped out for agricultural and urban use in most years and for most of the time in all years. Meaning the river goes completely dry for long sections most of the time. Obviously no fish can live in a dry river. The San Joaquin was once a major salmon river, but now salmon are extinct there. Yet state law mandates that any dam must maintain a healthy river and good fishery downstream of that dam. Friant dam does not do that and when it was built the feds said it did not need to do that. Nearly 20 years ago environmental groups filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation and Friant Water users to force Friant to release enough water to keep the river alive and to allow the reintroduction of Salmon. Slowly, very slowly, the Natural Resources Defense Council was winning that lawsuit.
Finally, in 2006, under pressure from senators and congressmen the Friant Water Users agreed to a settlement that will eventually allow between 10% and 15% of the rivers natural flow back into the dewatered stream. This will allow the San Joaquin to once again flow all the way to the Delta and to San Fransisco Bay all year long. Hopefully this will also allow Salmon to once again swim up the San Joaquin to spawn, by the year 2013.
[www.savethesanjoaquin.org]
[www.nrdc.org]
[www.revivethesanjoaquin.org]
Naturally that 10% to 15% of the rivers flow will have to be given up by the farmers who have been using and profiting from it for the last 60 years. Just as naturally, they do not want to give up that water and if they do, they want the state to replace it. It is hard to tell by the language of the bill, but that replacement might be for free.
Presently the partial restoration of the San Joaquin River will come from existing facilities. It is not contingent on new dams. New storage at Temperance Flat should stand on its own merits and be paid for fully by those who use the water stored there.
This part of the bill could apply to many other similar situations and rivers as well, where water users are profiting at the expense of the environment and are now being forced to make reparations and repairs.
In reading SB 59, it is not exactly clear how the bond will be repaid other than the money will come out of the State General Fund. Cost sharing is also confusing.
From section 82033 (a) Using the funds is dependant on:
(2) Development of a comprehensive financing plan for the
project that includes the state’s cost share for the project benefits
described in subdivision (b), any cost sharing by the federal
government for federal interests identified in the project, and any
other state or local public agency or private cost share for water
supply, power generation, or other benefits generated by the
project. The comprehensive financing plan shall allocate all project
costs among all project beneficiaries in relation to the benefits
received. The state’s cost share for the project benefits described
in subdivision (b) shall not exceed 50 percent of the total project
costs for projects funded under this chapter.
(3) Agreements with potential water users to contract and pay
for not less than 75 percent of the agricultural and urban water
supply benefits of the project.
On the face this sounds financially sound, but there may be a lot of fudge room. Water supply is the obvious primary benefit. But will water users pay for 75% of the cost of the stored water, or will they pay for 75% of the water at what ever subsidized cost they can work out. Either way it appears that 25% of some cost can be subsidized. But if we say that a big benefit is flood control, then the state and feds can pick up a bigger percentage of the total cost, even though the actual beneficiaries are developers who build in the flood plains, and obviously the water users. If you can say that recreation, environment, flood control and other creative ideas get big benefits then maybe you can reduce the supposed benefits and cost to the water users down to a very low, and attractive level.
Here are some more related links, some in favor of dams, some against.
State Senator Dave Cogdill press release
About senate bill 59
[republican.sen.ca.gov]
Chico Enterprise article
[www.friendsoftheriver.org]
Friends of the River press room articles
[www.friendsoftheriver.org]
Planning & Conservation League; water strategy
[www.pcl.org]
Revive the San Joaquin
[www.revivethesanjoaquin.org]
Save the San Joaquin
[www.savethesanjoaquin.org]
Fresno Bee editorial in favor of new dams
[www.fresnobee.com]
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
RSS for this Forum