			<div   class='message  msg_warn'>
									
				You are currently not logged in or haven't verified your email in a while. Please login or complete the verifictation process to post.
				</div>
			<div style='clear:both'></div>
		<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>General Stewardship Discussion</title>
    <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/list/send/16/</link>
    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>EN</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:14:19 -0400</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:14:19 -0400</lastBuildDate>
    <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
    <generator>Phorum 5.1.23</generator>
    <ttl>600</ttl>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Recreational releases and flow studies</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16833/#msg-16833</link>
      <author>jasonrainey</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The South Yuba River Citizens League (SYRCL) has been working collaboratively with AW in the context of the re-licensings of the Yuba and Bear Rivers for over 4 years, as well as statewide through AW's leadership in the California Hydropower Reform Coalition.  SYRCL considers AW a valued partner and AW’s contributions in these relicensings have only served to advance SYRCL’s re-licensing goals for improved aquatic habitat and restored anadromy in the Middle and South Yuba Rivers.  It's a great thing that the two organizations share these broader stewardship goals. AW has recognized and supported from the beginning of the Yuba relicesnings that artificial pulse flows for strictly recreational purposes are not feasible in the Yuba system.  AW has dug in deep,  become expert in the operations of the Yuba system and I'm confident that we'll reach our shared--and ambitious--goals regarding salmon restoration and improved cold water habitat.  

When we're celebrating that victory for the Yuba, AW will enjoy a large measure of the credit.  And, I hope and trust that we'll also be celebrating with a greater number of ideal whitewater days--certainly an interest of many of our members, too--by fine-tuning some seasonal flows, with kayaks going down while the spring-run Chinook are heading up.

Jason Rainey
SYRCL Executive Director]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16833/#msg-16833</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:14:19 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Recreational releases and flow studies</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16775/#msg-16775</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Bob Center sent some graphs of reservoir elevations on Canyon creek that clearly show the reservoirs being drained every year during late summer and fall, for hydropower generation.   That appears to be the purpose of these reservoirs (French Lake, Foucherie and Sawmill), to hold water through the summer then release it in the fall.   There are no diversions in these reservoirs, so the water is released into Canyon Creek, down to Bowman reservoir from where it is diverted for power production.   In an earlier message I stated that there were no releases in 2009.   That was incorrect.   There were the usual fall releases, but they were not recreational releases except that boaters were able to utilize them.  

Fall releases into Fordyce Creek are for exactly the same purpose.   

Boater use of these flows is opportunistic.  Once boaters found out about the flows and about these creeks, they started utilizing them.   

Weekend recreational releases on the NF Feather are for recreation, but the frog egg issue which Jeffrey pointed out, drastically changed the way the releases are done.

Closer to my area, around Fresno, Ca there have been very high fall flows on several rivers.  Most due to a big rainstorm, but not all.  

The Kaweah hit 21,000 cfs which is about 3 to 4 times an average peak run off.  
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/210/
http://c2.com/kaweah/    Kaweah River Page has photos and info about the flood and about changes to the river.   
The Kings river hit 9,000 cfs on Oct 14 which is an average springtime peak run off, but it went from 200 cfs to 9,000 cfs in a few hours.  
http://www.dreamflows.com/graphs/mon.100.php    (this graph will only show this for 20 days or so)

Rivers all over the state were huge from this storm.   Does show that nature can have big fall releases if it wants to.   A lot of boaters got out to take advantage of these flows.  

The San Joaquin is entirely dam controlled, but the power companies save their annual maintainance till the fall when flows are generally the lowest.   One reservoir needed some work on the release gates, so instead of the usual 40 cfs, flows were fluctuating quite a bit in Patterson Bend.
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/288/  
http://www.dreamflows.com/graphs/mon.100.php  (graph is good for the next 20 days or so)
This CDEC plot might be a permanent link.
http://cdec.water.ca.gov/histPlot/DataPlotter.jsp?staid=sja&amp;sensor_no=20&amp;duration=E&amp;start=10%2F01%2F2009+16%3A27&amp;end=now&amp;geom=Medium
This CDEC plot indicates that flows hit 15,000 which is pretty amazing even to me.  Otherwise flows fluctuated up and down erratically sometimes as low as 100 or 200 cfs, sometimes as high as 3,800 cfs.   I boated it on a day when flows were somehow stable at about 1,200 cfs, but it could have changed at any moment.  Occasionally during the fall in the last few years this reach has gotten boatable flows for a few hours on unpredictable days.  Often those flows have been in the middle of the night.  
If I could negotiate for a recreational release on this reach, I would ask for flows of around 1,800 cfs on a few weekends, during the day, probably in the fall as that is when we would have the most likely hood of actually getting releases.  But that is 20 years down the road.   Maybe things will be different by then and the next person to work on this will have better ideas than I.  

Paul Martzen
Fresno, CA]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16775/#msg-16775</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 20:36:47 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Recreational releases and flow studies</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16771/#msg-16771</link>
      <author>haystacker</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I need to re-visit my previous post.

Though I am a member of SYRCL I am not their spokesperson. My statement is NOT to attributable to SYRCL. I shouldn't have used my membership as a platform to launch my personal opinion. I'm sorry for the inconvenient and unfortunate timing of my statement.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16771/#msg-16771</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:04:58 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Recreational releases and flow studies</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16730/#msg-16730</link>
      <author>wwrafter</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Paul,
I agree that AW should be &quot;responsible stewards and advocates for healthy rivers&quot;.  I also understand that dams are largely under the control of power companies and flows occur as energy is needed.  Yes dam operators can and do release huge amounts of water seemingly at will sometimes. That doesnt make it ok.   In my time as a ww guide i have seen rivers double in flow over an hour or two from an accidental release or damaged equipment.  These are generally not healthy flushing/ morphological flows.  I think we can agree that rivers do need high flow events to maintain and create natural features, habitat and make things tough for invasive species.  
Just like with the greater water issues of the state, there is no easy fix to this issue.  I would love to have a variety of great boating opportunities year round but what is the cost to the environment?  I do commend AW for actively voicing their opinions and working to promote whitewater boating however i disagree with part of the mission.  I would like to see the focus on access to rivers, environmental stewardship and utilizing existing resources.  
Dams are a &quot;necessary evil&quot; and should be managed as near to natural conditions as feasible.  Yes I may sound idealistic but the status quo isnt working out so well.

Jeffrey Sanchez
Associate Hydrologist
Chico, CA]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16730/#msg-16730</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:39:55 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Recreational releases and flow studies</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16700/#msg-16700</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Hello Ralph,  

I assume that you have already submitted your information about Canyon Creek to the resource agencies and to FERC.   Perhaps you have already argued endlessly with local AW representatives.   I don't think any recreational releases took place in 2009.   I imagine that your information carried considerable weight, especially if you have good evidence or it can be obtained by resource studies.  

I am not personally familiar with Fordyce or Canyon Creek, but I have tried to link good flow information to the AW web pages so it is easier to see what the flow patterns have been like on these reaches.  
http://americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/199/
http://americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/6363/
I assume you were talking about the Canyon Creek section from French Lake down to Bowman lake.  Dreamflows has records for most of the last 3 years and shows a few spikes at different times.  Looks like a lot of data is missing.  
http://www.dreamflows.com/graphs/yir.399.php  
It appears that none of the gauges on this reach other than dreamflows, show flows other than minimum releases.   There is no online historical data of spill flows on this reach.   So I have no way of knowing what kinds of spill patterns have occurred on this creek in the past.  

On Fordyce there is historical data and it appears to me that flows have fluctuated pretty wildly through out every year that I have looked at going back to the 1960's.   It seems pretty clear that these fluctuations are due to hydro operations and that recreational use is secondary and opportunistic.   AW has been successful in altering the release in the fall so it is more usable by boaters, but it appears that fall releases were occurring long before boaters discovered them.  

Paul Martzen
Fresno, CA]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16700/#msg-16700</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:13:02 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Recreational releases and flow studies</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16684/#msg-16684</link>
      <author>haystacker</author>
      <description><![CDATA[As an avid whitewater boater and fisherman, I cannot condone out of season pulse flows. The timing of this post is perfect. 4dice creek is a great boating and fishing creek. Right now should be the peak of fall dry fly fishing, but the insects are largely gone. All the surrounding creeks have great hatches but Fordyce is barren. The only logical explanation are the out of season pulse flows done this summer that entirely disrupt the normal life cycles of insects that have evolved for eons around low summer/fall flows and peak flows in the spring.

Last year Canyon Creek experienced the same phenomenae. Huge recreational pulse in September not only flushed the insect life but prematurely initiated the brown trout run up from the reservoir (they normally wait for the first rains which keep sustained higher flows). When the play days were done, and boaters gone, the creek was dropped to &quot;normal&quot; flows and the fish were sitting ducks to bear, otters, etc and the relative overpopulation of fish predispose them to diseases and lack of sufficient food (that had been blown out of the river).

Rivers DO need to be scrubbed, but in a way that mimick the natural hydrograph as much as possible. To promote anything otherwise is nothing but transparent and self-serving hype that makes AW look pretty hypocritical in the eyes of the environmental community.

Ralph Cutter
South Yuba River Citizen's League (SYRCL)
Nevada City, CA]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16684/#msg-16684</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:33:20 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Recreational releases and flow studies</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16669/#msg-16669</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[American Whitewater represents a wide range of river users, some of whom would prefer &quot;waterslides&quot; that can be turned on and off and many who believe pretty much as you do, that we should try to mimic natural flow regimes.    AW has to work closely with resource agencies to get anything done.  We want to be responsible stewards and advocates for healthy rivers.  

Flow study methods are evolving over time and we seem to be moving towards more opportunistic flow studies when that is possible.    With opportunistic studies we convince the dam operator to simply provide good flow information in the years leading up to relicensing.   This allows boaters to utilize and report on a range of flows as provided by normal dam operations during spill periods.   This should cost less and gives more boaters the opportunity to participate in the studies.   However, some reaches almost never see spills, or see such erratic spills that a more formal flow study is necessary to get moderate flows.  

One miss perception that I frequently run into, even from resource people, is the idea that whitewater flows are highly unusual and extreme events for dam controlled rivers.    My experience has been that flows needed by boaters are really small compared to the pulse flows and fluctuations common on many dam controlled rivers.  So for instance we argue that raising the flow in a river from 50 cfs up to 1500 cfs over a weekend and then back down is a horrible thing to do to certain fish.   We don't know for sure that it is, but it can be argued logically.    However, if the power company has a problem with a gate or a generator or has logs at the top of the dam that they want to dump, they might spill 10,000 cfs for an hour or two, and nobody accept me and AW will notice.   

If it is a big runnoff year, maybe flows will jump up to 20,000 cfs or so for a day or two, then drop way down, then jump back up for a few hours.   When spills end, they tend to end suddenly.   Go look at the hourly flow reports for any dam during spring spill to see what I mean.    On the other hand the conditions in natural runoff rivers can be pretty extreme and the aquatic denizens have evolved for those conditions.    We can ask the question about how much harm a 1,500 cfs flow causes to critters adapted to 10,000 cfs flows.   We should also ask the question about whether river critters benefit from periodic high flows.  We know that in natural regimes, high flows do benefit river animals in a variety of ways.    Higher flows tend to bring down more food and open up more habitat.  

When we propose boating flows on a reach, we always discuss a moderate ramping rate.   Because of our involvement and the obvious double standard, resource agencies are starting to ask for moderate ramping rates for other kinds of spill and release events.   Fishing and other environmental advocates are pushing for similar standards, especially when we work  together and listen to each others concerns.    However, even now, if the dam operator decides to go from 0 cfs to 5,000 or 10,000 or 30,000 cfs in a matter of minutes, that is what they will do.   It is much more common than you may realize.  

I think that most boating flow releases have far less impact than other common dam practices, however, by advocating for such releases we have forced studies that may give us much better understanding of river life in the long run.   AW frequently does not succeed in obtaining boating flow schedules.   Usually we are not turned back by environmental concerns but rather by forces that do not want any water flowing in a river when it could be flowing in a pipe.   When AW negotiations result in pulse flows it is always a compromise.   We would like to have natural flows in the river all the time, but we are there in numbers only on weekends.   The power companies and dam operators would like to have zero flow in the river so they can run it through their ditches and powerhouses.   (I am exaggerating.   They are mostly super decent people but they have different perspectives)    They compromise by giving us some water on the weekends.   We compromise by helping the resource agencies get higher minimum flows during the week at the expense of higher flows on the weekends.  

The frog egg issue which you allude to on the NF Feather is an example of a controversy which has actually lead to a longer term increase in flows rather than pulse flows.   Weekend boating releases were implemented for a year or two till an agency argued that frog eggs were being damaged, washed away or stranded.    My understanding is that there was and remains a debate about whether this damage was actually happening or to what extent.    A compromise was reached where a lower level of boatable flows is released for several weeks, with a gradual ramp up at the beginning of the period and a gradual ramp down at the end of the period.    The boatable flows are also less than the natural hydrograph for that time period.  

In summary, pulse and boating flows are compromises.   As we learn more about river ecology they may be used less or they might actually be used more but with better timing or ramping.   Whitewater boating releases are generally quite small compared to the erratic flow changes common to dam controlled rivers.    The attention that boaters and other river users are bringing to this will hopefully lead to long term improvements in how dams are operated.    

Paul Martzen]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16669/#msg-16669</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 16:52:43 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Recreational releases and flow studies</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16663/#msg-16663</link>
      <author>wwrafter</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Whitewater is great, flow studies are not.  Pulse releases are akin to turning a firehose on a person and washing them off of the sidewalk-  the same thing happens to the bugs and fish that live in the river system.  Perfect example is the North Fork Feather- AW pushed for pulse flows for recreation only to learn that these flows were stranding frog eggs when the release ended.  
Instead of pushing for recreational pulse releases on pristine remote rivers, why can t paddlers hit those during naturally boatable periods and stick to the already impacted runs like the American or Tuolumne during the summer.  Should skiiers make snow in august cause they cant wait for real snow?  Boaters should be concerned that the rivers they know and love can be stripped of life by just a single out of season pulse of water released for a recreational study.  
I am not advocating against paddling, river conservation or access to padling opportunities.  I am advocating for better management of rivers, mimicking natural flow regimes and not &quot;waterslides&quot; turned on in july for recreation.
Please consider the health of the watersheds around you before you push for out of season flows for a single user group.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,16663,16663/#msg-16663</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:48:06 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dosewallips Road DEIS</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,3482,3482/#msg-3482</link>
      <author>RodFarlee</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The Dosewallips Road in Olympic National Park (WA) has been closed since it washed out in 2002.  Thomas O'Keefe authored a background article on the issue [[url=http://www.americanwhitewater.org/archive/article/488/]AW[/url]].  Since then, the Forest Service has refined the proposed route across the hillside above the washout to avoid a small stream and most of the larger trees [[url=http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/2007/May/Day-11/i2333.htm]Federal Register[/url]].

In March, Olympic National Forest expects to release their Draft Environmental Impact Statement for reopening the Dosewallips Road. To receive a copy of the DEIS, contact Tim Davis ONF 360-956-2375 or email comments-pacificnorthwest-olympic@fs.fed.us with &quot;Dosewallips DEIS&quot; in the subject line, and request DEIS Summary (25 pages) or Full DEIS (320 pages). 

Decommissioning is not a practical alternative, and is not considered in the DEIS.  It would include demolition of the concrete bridge across the river, two steel bridges across streams, an Olympic  National Park Ranger Station, campground, and related facilities, excavation of dozens of culverts, bulldozing the roadbed, and would cost more than reopening the road.  However, Olympic Forest Coalition continues to advocate decommissioning the road by driving heavy equipment up the riverbed, and hauling all the demolition debris down the riverbed, to avoid reopening the road.  An analysis of this curious proposal is available [[url=http://www.wta.org/trail-news/signpost/when-to-let-a-road-go#1200682711]WTA[/url]].]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,3482,3482/#msg-3482</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:46:25 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sultan River Flow Study</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,1924,1924/#msg-1924</link>
      <author>okeefe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[This weekend (Fri,Sat,Sun) there will be a recreational flow study on the Sultan River. It has been a long process to negotiate this study and I thank all those who wrote in comments and attended the public meeting to advocate for this--you made a difference.

Each flow study is different and in this case AW was asked to provide no more than 15 boaters for the study panel and focus group. I sent out an invitation to about 60 people who have run the river before (and filled out the online survey) and based on responses we put together the focus group. For purposes of the study we wanted individuals who had knowledge of the run at a previous flow. I also made an effort to get a good cross section of the community.

Now I know many others are probably wanting to come out and check out the river and some of you will surely find your way there. We will not be closing or restricting access to the river--it is a public resource. However we are discouraging individuals not affiliated with the study from coming out. Here are the guidelines and things to consider:

- It is critical that part-time class IV boaters not come out this weekend. It is imperative that we minimize the probability of any incident on the river as this will have major implications for our ability to negotiate future releases. Remember this is a study to determine feasibility of future releases for the public--that will be highly publicized--for the next 30 years. It is in all of our best interests to make sure this one runs smoothly. If this one runs smoothly we're in good shape; if it doesn't it makes my job all that much more challenging and can jeopardize our ability to negotiate effectively.

- We have a plan for what flows will be released but that plan could be modified by the focus group

- We have a situation with the miner who has a claim at the access site we use for a put-in. Please do not touch his equipment, do not use his ladder, and attempt to minimize disturbance in this area.

- If you are on the fence on whether to come or not this is not the best weekend to come check out the river--we will continue our efforts to bring formal opportunities to enjoy this run that will be highly publicized. We have enough people for purposes of the study.

- If you would like to run the river, please send me an email and I can provide more detailed information on logistics and what's happening (I will be out on the river all day with the consultants tomorrow so try to catch me before tomorrow morning). I'm not necessarily making this a secret but if we get the whole regional boating community there it could be a problem and we're not set up to manage that (we'll get to that but right now we are just evaluating flows).

- If you get on the water please make sure you get an early start--remember this is a long 14 mile run. Please do not jam up the road to the put-in. We have consultants who will need to be able to come and go efficiently. Stay out of trouble, be cool, and we'll keep working for formal opportunities to enjoy this river.

- Please contact me with any concerns, questions, suggestions, or complaints.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,1924,1924/#msg-1924</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 17:46:29 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Info on log removal</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,1645,1645/#msg-1645</link>
      <author>jkinsman</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I live in a town where there is a beautiful class 4+ creek (Whatcom Creek in Bellingham, WA) running through a beautifully managed park. The creek flows from a lake and is controlled by a small dam, which is the city's drinking water source. Every year the city lowers the lake by opening up the dam. The problem is that since the creek no longer floods, it is choked with logs that have either natually fallen into the creek or been placed there for fish habitat. Thus really inhibiting the recreation opportunites on this run.

In the past, this run has been a fun, easily accessible run for paddlers. 

I would really like to work with the city and the park to slightly alter the position of these logs as to provide for fish habitat but also allow safe passage for river recreation.

I am wondering if anyone has successfully convinced a management agency of the danger of allowing river wide logs in a section of river accessed by swimmers, fishermen, joggers and whitewater enthusiasts?

Does anyone know of any successful campaigns like this or any resources I could use to convince the city that this is in their best interest?

I am planning on writing a letter with photos of the log choked areas of the stream. I would like to include any kind of research or explanation as to why damned creeks and rivers accumulate logs. Does anyone have info like this?

I want to make the argument that we can have healthy fish habitat without endangering the lives of fishermen, swimmers and paddlers by simply adjusting the log jams to allow an option for safe passage. 

I want to be as convincing as possible and as much data and examples as I can find would be helpful.

Thanks
Jesse]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,1645,1645/#msg-1645</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Sep 2007 01:58:20 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: San Joaquin River: Temperance Flat Dam proposals</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,360,417/#msg-417</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[State Senate Bill 59 was introduced into the California Senate on January 11, 2007

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_59_bill_20070111_introduced.pdf

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.   
http://www.savethesanjoaquin.org/
http://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/sanjoaquin.asp
http://www.revivethesanjoaquin.org/index.html

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
http://republican.sen.ca.gov/news/14/pressrelease4412.asp

Chico Enterprise article
http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/site/DocServer/070111_ChicoER_Sites.pdf?docID=481

Friends of the River press room articles
http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FORPressRoom

Planning &amp; Conservation League; water strategy
http://www.pcl.org/projects/waterforca.html

Revive the San Joaquin
http://www.revivethesanjoaquin.org/index.html

Save the San Joaquin
http://www.savethesanjoaquin.org/

Fresno Bee editorial in favor of new dams
http://www.fresnobee.com/274/story/24087.html]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,360,417/#msg-417</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:18:13 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>San Joaquin River: Temperance Flat Dam proposals</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,360,360/#msg-360</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[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:
https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/288/       Patterson Bend
https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/4197/     Squaw Leap
https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/4196/     Millerton Bottoms

The largest and most desired of the proposals would also flood:
https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/287/       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:
http://www.blm.gov/ca/bakersfield/sanjoaquinrivergorge.html

Information about ongoing studies conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation are at:
http://www.usbr.gov/mp/sccao/storage/index.html

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.
http://www.house.gov/nunes/press/2003/newsclips/jan/011003VTDTemperanceBill.htm
http://www.house.gov/nunes/press/2003/newsclips/nov/111303VTDDamStudy.htm

Governor Schwarzenegger may propose to use state money to fund this or other dams, in January of 2007.   
http://www.fresnobee.com/263/v-printerfriendly/story/20367.html

Lloyd Carter is Director of &quot;Revive the San Joaquin&quot; 
http://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.
http://www.fresnobeehive.com/archives/2006/04/job_offer_for_r_1.html]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,360,360/#msg-360</guid>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Dec 2006 16:29:10 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>National River Cleanup Week: 6/2 - 6/10</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,348,348/#msg-348</link>
      <author>julesagogo</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I noticed the A/W page below could use an update.  I know it's kind of early, but we've put together a couple of cleanup trips for spring:

http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/view/id/stewardship%3Astream_cleanups/

3/10/07, Maury (Goshen Pass), http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/detail/id/1966, Alicia Jahsmann for Coastals, contact: http://www.coastals.org/trips/

I'll reply with the others as soon as I get the reach info.

Thanks!

Julie]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,348,348/#msg-348</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Dec 2006 12:16:13 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Anyone have a copy of the FERC license applicaiton for Tallulah?</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,306/#msg-306</link>
      <author>pinecricker</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Thanks all for the information. 

I am very curious to understand the true economic value of weekend Tallulah releases. The utilities generally use the very small hydro sites like Tallulah for incremental generating capacity during peak loads. Peak loads generally do not occur on weekends. Bearing this in mind, theoretically speaking the only real opportunity cost GP feels with recreational releases is lost water they might otherwise store in the reservoir for later use. 

I'm not terribly familiar with the Hydrology of the Tallulah's watershed, but I have noticed that during periods of heavy rain excess water is released into the gorge. So theoretically speaking there could be a surplus of water in the drainage basin from a power generation perspective. If this were true, then the true economic cost of the realeses would in theory be negligable. Obviously, one would have some detailed data on storage capacity, flows into the lake, over the dam and through the powerhouse to answer the question with any precision, but it would certainly be interesting to know. 

My hunch is that most utilities are probably overstating the cost of recreational releases. Tallulah would be an interesting test case for this hunch. This sure poses an interesting water rights question as well. Sould a utiltiy have such entitlement to water?]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,306/#msg-306</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 05 Nov 2006 07:04:39 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Anyone have a copy of the FERC license applicaiton for Tallulah?</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,281/#msg-281</link>
      <author>okeefe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[To follow up on Paul's comment we are working with our coalition partners at the Hydropower Reform Coalition to build a comprehensive website of the nation's hydropower projects. All the information is available through FERC's website but it is not easy to find if you are not used to navigating it.

We just went public with this and it's a little rough around the edges but we're getting it put together. As an example see the Klamath page:

http://www.hydroreform.org/projects/klamath-p-2082

We will have links to the license and key issues, maps of each project, and photos.

Also on the AW website we now have project pages. These provide background on our involvement in different projects and links to key documents. See the two examples below. We are slowly building this out and you will start to see more of them linked from the river pages.

North Fork Rogue
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Project/view/id/42/

White Salmon
http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Project/view/id/6/]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,281/#msg-281</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Oct 2006 05:06:52 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Anyone have a copy of the FERC license applicaiton for Tallulah?</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,278/#msg-278</link>
      <author>pmartzen</author>
      <description><![CDATA[The EIS documents that I have studied all include average annual generation, average annual revenues and annual costs.   Energy prices fluctuate quite a bit from hour to hour, day to day, etc. so revenue figures have to be averaged.   The costs of new license conditions, such as whitewater release, increased fish flows, repairs to structures, new maintanence requirements, etc. all have to be factored into the total revenue picture.   The draft and final EIS should show and discuss those numbers.     

I am just starting to include links to appropriate FERC documents on river pages of rivers that are affected by hydro projects.   The FERC elibrary is confusing if you are not used to it or only search in occasionally (like me).   Having direct links such as Tom provided above will help more people to understand what is up with these projects.   We should also include the expiration of the projects, so that activists of the future can be ready.  
  
Paul M.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,278/#msg-278</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Oct 2006 13:49:58 -0500</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Anyone have a copy of the FERC license applicaiton for Tallulah?</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,274/#msg-274</link>
      <author>okeefe</author>
      <description><![CDATA[It took a while to get to this one but I just looked up the most recent generation report I could find. The Tallulah generated 210,099,000 Gross KWH for the period 10/1/04 to 9/30/05. After on-station use the net generation sent to the switchboard was 209,283,000 KWH. Multiply out the cost per KWH and you can get an estimate of gross revenue. You would of course need to subtract out expenses to get net revenue. I don't know what that would be. The EIS should provide some insight. 

Here's the link to the generation report:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/intermediate.asp?link_file=yes&amp;doclist=4352317

There should be a section on generation and revenue in the Final EIS but it's a big file so you'll have to download and take a look:
http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/intermediate.asp?link_file=yes&amp;doclist=1959181]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,274/#msg-274</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2006 22:18:33 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Anyone have a copy of the FERC license applicaiton for Tallulah?</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,239/#msg-239</link>
      <author>esbacon</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I have a copy but it does not include any information about the revenue from power generation. It is estimated, though, that Tallulah releases cost Georgia Power approximately $7,500 per release, or roughly $1,250/hour. Email me if you have any more questions -- sutton@suttonbacon.com.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,239/#msg-239</guid>
      <pubDate>Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:05:18 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Anyone have a copy of the FERC license applicaiton for Tallulah?</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,214/#msg-214</link>
      <author>rgroth</author>
      <description><![CDATA[I would think that Kevin, from the contact page (http://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Directory/detail/listing/staff/) could put you in touch with the resources.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,214/#msg-214</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:52:45 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: It's good to see this forum...</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,42,212/#msg-212</link>
      <author>Drazzle</author>
      <description><![CDATA[This is a very good thing a place for kayakers to talk about rivers and boats and gear. I hope this forum grows and becomes more popular.
thanks A.W.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,42,212/#msg-212</guid>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:11:18 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Anyone have a copy of the FERC license applicaiton for Tallulah?</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,197/#msg-197</link>
      <author>pinecricker</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Curious to know how much revenue is realized from power generation on Tallulah.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,197,197/#msg-197</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:44:04 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Jocassee Rivers need help!</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,77,77/#msg-77</link>
      <author>bankfull1</author>
      <description><![CDATA[Nothing new, but Access at the Horsepasture and Toxaway need to be cleared up.

The Horsepasture is a simpler issue, in that the public has right to putin at the Hwy 281 bridge, its just that no one has set the precedent legally yet.   The only people to get tickets didn't follow up and get it dismissed.  NC has the best navigability laws in the country, and it is legal to access the river at the Hwy 281 bridge.

Someone needs to just go down there and get a ticket and then appeal it to a court beyond the local scope to get it overturned.  Then access will work out.  I am not a lawyer though, and am not positive it is that simple.  Bottom line is that access to the Horsepasture W&amp;S River is legal, we just have to go the whole mile to protect that right to access.

Toxaway is much more difficult, in that it lies completely in the Gorges State Park.  The putin is technically accessible since on CAN technically use the Hwy 64 easement to get to the streambed and then stay below the high water mark and portage the falls.  Parking is another story.  The big concern is the banning of kayaking in the park, which is a real possibility.  It would be banned for the claim of cutting down on environmental impact, and for the fact that the park isn't interested in the liability of conducting S&amp;R in the event of an emergency.  Trying to stall this seemingly inevitable decision by the state park will be tough, and once again, though I am not an expert or lawyer, I am willing to help with the guidance of AW staff.  The park development plan involves much construction, road building, campgrounds with RV hookups, visitor centers, bathrooms, overlooks, parking lots, etc.  It seems that if they can take the land and develop it so extensively, then by comparison kayakers will have little to no impact environmentally speaking.  Still, kayaking is not viewed well with park officials, especially state park officials, who are often case the most stringent in their management scope.

We must work to protect our priviledge to access the Jocassee watershed, as it is the most beautiful and rugged region in the east.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,77,77/#msg-77</guid>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:21:53 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>It's good to see this forum...</title>
      <link>http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,42,42/#msg-42</link>
      <author>barry</author>
      <description><![CDATA[and here's hoping this becomes a new means to focus boater energy to open up, protect and save more rivers. Thanks AW.]]></description>
      <category>General Stewardship Discussion</category>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.americanwhitewater.org//content/Forum/read/send/16,42,42/#msg-42</guid>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:35:27 -0400</pubDate>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
