Posted on 03/18/2006 10:18:09 AM PST by SmithL
If California suddenly went dry, and no rain or snow fell for two straight years, the state would still have enough water to go around thanks to this year's wet winter, meteorologists and water experts said Friday.
The recent cold snap that blanketed the Sierra with snow, and even powdered Bay Area hills, is expected to leave the state flush with water for the foreseeable future.
The Sierra Nevada snowpack, which, to hydrologists, is a better holding tank than the biggest man-made reservoirs, has more water in it than even last year.
"We're in fat city, and I mean fat city!" exclaimed Mike Pechner, staff meteorologist for KCBS Radio. "This is a superb water year."
Donner Summit has seen 390 inches of snow, compared to an average of 313 inches for this time of year, according to statistics compiled by Randall Osterhauber, a research scientist for the UC Berkeley central Sierra snow lab at Soda Springs. About 330 inches had fallen by this time last year, also an above-average year.
Donner has 120 inches of snow on the ground, compared to 71 at this time last year, according to Osterhauber's data.
"If it stopped right now, we would have enough water in storage for two years of drought," Pechner said. "They have already had an entire season's worth of accumulated rain and snow."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
This always means an increase in undergrowth and a subsequent increase in fire danger. Watch for major fires, if not this then the next.
I've heard Colorado has record snowfall this year as well. Winter Park had 400 inches of snow as of Friday.
Oh Oh .... Too much water ? Be prepared for higher water rates so we can study global cooling ( or warming - dosen't matter ) and build more reservoirs to hold it, and make sure the current Dams are ready for it.
Oh Oh .... Too little water ? Be prepared for higher water rates so we can study global cooling ( or warming - dosen't matter ) etc, etc .
The Austrian could pay for soccer fields in LA, illegal immigrant housing in Orange County and all the levees needed to protect the property values of his large donors with the proceeds that this taxing bonanza would generate.
Charge them by the cubic foot as it rushes by. A tax collector on every river bank.
Well heck, I thought in California toads was for lickin' anyhow.
How did the Toad Cross the road?
Toad Tunnel
Davis' Toad Tunnel is a wildlife crossing that was constructed in 1995 and has drawn much attention over the years, including a mention on The Daily Show. Because of the building of an overpass, animal lovers worried about toads being killed by cars commuting from South Davis to North Davis, since the toads hopped from one side of a dirt lot (which the overpass replaced) to the reservoir at the other end. After much controversy, a decision was made to build a toad tunnel, which runs beneath the Pole Line Road overpass which crosses Interstate 80. The project cost $14,000. The tunnel is 21 inches wide and 18 inches high.
The tunnel has created problems of its own. The toads originally refused to use the tunnel and so the tunnel was lighted to encourage its use. The toads then died from the heat of the lamps inside the tunnel. The exit to the toad tunnel has been decorated by the Post-Master to resemble a toad town.
If that is an honest lament then ring up the Austrian and local, elected, state representatives and plead with them to get the Wilsonegger/Democrat bonding proposals on the November ballot. Those packages support water exports from the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta to SoCal through the CVP conduit.
But please remember that many of us with be voting NO on those bond proposals unless their financing mechanisms are restructured to enhance the tax burden those who directly benefit. That would be SoCal residents if water is exported south. Just think of it as pay-for-play. Every one in Sacramento does.
I do see it as a benefit that would be useful in a legitimate, local emergency. The question is; who should pay for it? What I don't see is the necessity for residents of Needles to underwrite development costs for folks in Lancaster.
I do believe that residents of the Sacramento Valley should pay for levee improvements if they are necessary. What i don't see is a necessity for state taxpayers to underwrite the risk of residents who built their homes in a recognized flood plane without adequate protection from flooding.
I do believe that the expense of local infrastructure, like bay bridges, should be born by its users or local residents. Why should residents of Carlsbad underwrite a worker's commute from Pleasanton to San Francisco?
I do believe that those who take foolish risks for self gratification should bear the cost of the consequences of their dalliances. Why should a retiree in Lone Pine pay for the medical expenses of a homosexual making foolish, life threatening decisions in the Castro.
And yes, those who directly benefit from a service or amenity, not usually accorded the whole public, should pay the freight. In the case of exporting water for development, that would be the occupants of the development made possible by the imported water.
I thought this year was a La Nina year and that these ocean temperature fluctuations affect the entire Pacific rim, at least on the Eastern Pacific side. Maybe just SoCal feels the effects?
Well then we mostly agree.
As far as the water goes, it is a resource that affects everyone in the state. When there are heavy rain/snow years, it is kind of dumb to let all that extra water run into the ocean. I live not far from the Santa Ana river, in Orange County. About every 7 years we get tremendous amounts of rain, and most of it goes out to sea. Wouldn't it be a good use of the rain if we could pump much of that water back inland and fill reservoirs?
The water doesn't have to just come north to south. Water storage capacity is spread throughout the state. It seems to me that it would be a good idea to have the capability to fill all our reservoirs when the water is plentiful. Northern CA is just as vulnerable to drought as Southern CA. Water could go both ways.
Yes, those who benefit should pay. Everyone in the state is affected by the availability of water. But the kind of distribution system like I am describing would benefit everyone in the state, by increasing and shoring up our supply.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.