High Sierra Topix

Prop 1 passed by a healthy margin. It's $7.5 billion, not $14 billion as stated in an early post. $2.7 billion for water storage, but the way its written, don't worry this will lead to a lot of new dams. It specifically won't pay directly for water supply storage. The wording separates "public benefit" from "private benefit" and only funds the costs of a project relative to the "public benefits." And no more than 50% of any project. So this is a cost-sharing arrangement that will not fund any project in its entirety.

Strangely, water supply is not considered a "public benefit" by this proposition. Whatever part of a dam or project that is allocated for water supply, that cost has to be paid for by the end user, even if they are a public agency like a city. I find that an odd distinction, but I get the concept. If you want the water, you have to pay to develop the storage. The state will pay for costs associated with environmental benefits, recreation benefits, flood control control benefits, groundwater recharging benefits, but not for new surface water supply. So this will help get water infrastructure projects going, but it won't pay for developing more water supply directly. Theoretically, the entire $2.7 billion could go for dry flood control dams and environmental habitat without actually increasing water supply one drop. I don't think it will happen that way, but it illustrates the way this is prop is worded.

The end result will probably be a lot more groundwater recharge, maybe one large new dam, and likely some smaller dams will be built or raised. The other funds (besides the $2.7 billion for water storage) will help with water conservation, groundwater monitoring, fixing leaky pipelines, and other water projects that will help conserve or clean up existing supplies.

So overall, Prop 1 will help, but don't worry about too much money going for new dams. It's just a drop in the bucket, a bucket that people don't appreciate until its empty.

Like Eric, I have to be careful what I say about this issue due to my line of work, but the White Elephant in the room of discussion about water distribution that nobody wants to talk about is do we have enough water in this state for all of those who want to use it? Water is not infinite in supply and while I dont oppose new storage projects, especially groundwater banking, would there have been water to store behind this new dam this year in the third year of a drought? The answer is no, it would be dry now as well. Again, I'm not persoannly opposed to new dams, but the beliief that one water storage project will cure all our water ills is nothing but folley.

Regading recycled water usage, its done all of the time and its use is increasing in these scarce water times.

i thought some of the weirdness of our current dams was around the water release schedules (dating back to the 50's). If you see a drought coming, don't release the water you don't have to (other than for fish or farming). I know that's a tall order, but still. keep everything you can in storage until you actually have to dump it for safety, and even better if you can funnel that to another storage basin.

I still want more dams, other then hetch hetchy. that's just wrong, NPS wise. And when the water is as low as it has been, get the graders into the current dams and dig deeper. Yes, the intakes probably are in the wrong places to take up more supply, but at least clean out the silt.

Water supply is all about timing. Dams do not create water, but the do store water that likely will be melting sooner from the Sierra. Groundwater banking has its problems and issues too. It is not an answer in itself. The answer to water problems is to approach it for all angles - less demand (less population- politically incorrect to discuss this), more conservation (waste of all kinds contribute - waste 1/3 of our food supply and you have wasted the water needed to produce it), more storage, better releases, better distribution (canals, pipelines), and more monitoring (how can you fix something if you do not even know what the status is?). On and on! Both supply and demand are changing and we must adjust.

I personally voted against the water bond. Probably because of the years I worked on water projects. I got a bit jaded seeing on the inside what goes on. (I am retired now so can say such stuff). I am not against the projects, per se. I am leery of bonds and public funds as the financing tools. Leery of anything produced from too much politics. Too much paper shuffling and too little actual work being done.

Prop 1 passed. I just hope the $$$ are spent well.

HikeSierraNevada wrote:The end result will probably be a lot more groundwater recharge, maybe one large new dam, and likely some smaller dams will be built or raised. The other funds (besides the $2.7 billion for water storage) will help with water conservation, groundwater monitoring, fixing leaky pipelines, and other water projects that will help conserve or clean up existing supplies.

This is how I see it as well. I also agree with the comments about water scarcity (no new water, but there is still a small about that has yet to be developed), and the need for integrated solutions. Development (facilitation, mostly) of integrated regional water solutions has been my primary professional focus for going on 10 years now. It's been said by my colleagues that my job title should be "cat herder."

Really not unlike my function, at times, on these forums.