"Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the century"

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by dave54 »

I do my part to send water to southern California...every time I flush my toilet.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Shawn
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1061
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2005 9:56 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by Shawn »

Just like Russ, I'm on a well here too. To make things worse, I'm among the massively expanding vineyards with their mega deep wells and HUGE above ground pumps sucking the aquifers dry. We gave up on our "lawn" four or five years ago. Earlier this month our water pressure went so low it was unusable in the house, had to have our well pump lowered 40 foot. Also reconfigured our system such that the below ground pump fills an above ground tank, then a booster pump draws from the tank and provides pressure to the house.

The point is with all of this, the vast majority of water consumers in metropolitan areas have no concept whatsoever about their water delivery system, conservation of water, where the water comes from, or give a damn about using it for needless activities. I think there is a correlation among this negligent use of water and apathy towards environmental issues.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by rlown »

Hobbes wrote:Rather than building additional dams (never gonna happen) in California, the next stage of development will probably involve tapping into the Columbia. Oregon will simply be no match for the combined Federal electoral influence of California, Nevada & Arizona.
You make a good point supporting my fave, "The state of Jefferson." :)

Lake Tahoe is closer. put at tunnel in about 1200' down, and voila! I didn't want to hurt TahoeJeff's view of the lake that much if they take that much. this is tongue in cheek; It would definitely impact their water supply and the Truckee river.

We do need more dams. It took a LOT of work to get LA to back off of Mono Lk a bit. And they need to quit taking water from the north as our Salmon populations will hurt more than has already been dealt out.
User avatar
TahoeJeff
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1224
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2007 11:03 am
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker
Location: South Lake Tahoe, NV

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by TahoeJeff »

My water supply is pretty solid:

Image

And don't any of you low-landers come up here looking to get any of it.....
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."

Milton Friedman
User avatar
Jimr
Forums Moderator
Forums Moderator
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 2:14 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Torrance

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by Jimr »

If the water doesn't flow toward the people, the people will flow toward the water :drinkers:
If you don't know where you're going, then any path will get you there.
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Posts: 3254
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: between the 916 and 661

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by ERIC »

Troutdog 59 wrote:I'll likely get Eric mad at me for this...
Ha! I...must..not..read..this..thread! :p
I come here to escape from work. You all carry on and have fun think-tanking your own fixes to California's water woes (armchair silver bullets and all that). I try to stay clear of the political stuff on here. You all know that. :thumbsup:
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
User avatar
Hobbes
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1120
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:09 am
Experience: N/A
Location: The OC

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by Hobbes »

Brother, ain't that the truth. LADWP was the best thing that ever happened to the Owens valley. Any long-term California native knows the name-of-the-game is to figure out where development cannot legally take place. It's quite satisfying to know that the E Sierra will never, ever, be developed - it will always remain in pristine condition.

When Roosevelt signed an EO in 1908 first establishing the Inyo FS (just a few years after his Sierra camping trip with Muir) to protect the watershed of the Owens river in Long Valley (ie Mammoth) for Los Angeles (not coincidentally, the same year the project began), he began the process by which Inyo's territory has progressively grown over the years.

There's not many places that are absolutely off-limits to development, but the few that are seem locked in time. As the rest of the entire state falls to the bulldozers, knowing where these places are located becomes imperative. You can hurl all the invective you want, but if a region isn't protected by law, residents cannot arbitrarily declare that they want landowners to cover the cost of open space for their personal enjoyment.

That's why, while north county San Diego put up a gallant fight, they had no chance against becoming another cog along the lines of south county OC in the great SoCal sprawl. Protesting, being depressed, fighting back, etc, had no effect - only Pendleton prevents a complete merge.

Look at the central valley - there's absolutely nothing preventing Sac, Fresno & Bakersfield from continuing to spread & grow. So, while population pressure will continue to drive development in those regions, other, select places will still enjoy their la-dee-da moments as the world spins around them.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Docent
Posts: 8225
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Wilton, CA

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by rlown »

Sac valley is on a sprawl fest, indeed. They want the ppty tax money. W/O water it will haunt them later. At least here in Sonoma county, they're trying to curb development growth. Salmon runs still trump the vineyards here, or at least the law is in the fishes favor.
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
Posts: 1331
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.

Re: "Sierra snowpack could drop 50% by the end of the centur

Post by dave54 »

Jimr wrote:If the water doesn't flow toward the people, the people will flow toward the water :drinkers:
The late Jesse Unruh said "Water flows towards money."

"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." Mark Twain.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 224 guests