Bill gives rafting preference over hydropower

Mountain Democrat ^ | Friday, April 19, 2002 | By EDMOND JACOBY

[Phil V.]

fyi

[Libertarianize the GOP]

It would be nice if the power company could sell the permits for whitewater rafting. Thereby the water could go to the highest bidder and let the market sort it out.

[Phil V.]

Any of you guys got an enviro-wako BUMP LIST?

[Phil V.]

. . . let the market sort it out.

Right now, the market IS FREE to sort it out. When demands for power generation and consideration of available water to release are the inputs the power company maximizes the timing and the production to the greatest good for the greatest number.

At the heart of the rafting gambit is a water theft/release/reallocation to the California Delta Pumping plants for transfer to points south.

The rafting industry is the "useful idiot" of Southern California.

[farmfriend]

Any of you guys got an enviro-wako BUMP LIST?

I think the closest thing is the Klamath list. It has been used as such and no one has compained yet.

Speaking of complaining, let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.

[farmfriend]

Passing this on through e-mail to people who are active in legislation but not yet freepers.

[Dinsdale]

I got to disagree with you about the delta pumping vs the timing of the release.

There are more then a hundard miles of river and two dams (Folsom is the big one) between the discussed parts of the american river and the sacramento river delta.

Setting a minimum river flow release requirement also checks erosion. Frequent rapid changes in river flow do bad things to the river bed/bank, what about the property rights of those who live near the river.

[farmfriend]

Sorry, forgot to add you to the list before I used it. So, to make it up to you, you get a special ping.

[jimtorr]

Frequent rapid changes in river flow do bad things to the river bed/bank, what about the property rights of those who live near the river.

Dinsdale, for 28 years I lived within two hours drive of more hydro power dams than I think exist in the entire state of California. Not one of those rivers has ever had any problems with erosion below the dams because of variable release rates.

As for property rights, they are only enhanced. The flood control aspects of any hydro dam makes downstream river bank property far more useable and immensly more valuable.

[tubebender]

Setting a minimum river flow release requirement also checks erosion. Frequent rapid changes in river flow do bad things to the river bed/bank, what about the property rights of those who live near the river.

Are you saying this only happens when water is released from the lake behind the dam ? ...better tell mother nature to be nice in the winter when the river escapes it's banks.

[jadimov]

This part of a larger problem with the general American public's mentality. We should be making every effort to maximize power generation from any source other than MidEast oil. A concerted effort on fully using current resources, increasing efficiency in vehicles, and developing new energy resources would go a long way towards erasing the power and wealth of the OPEC countries.

Instead we see things like this. We see the ANWR rescue people crying out against putting a whole in the ground in an area the size of a couple of football fields. Meanwhile American soldiers waste away their lives and other valuable resources protecting oil in Saudi Arabia.

[Carry_Okie]

Whitewater rafting puts the water under Federal control, because they like to interpret it as "navigable," never mind that the Founders were referring to commercial transportation (barges and ships) and had no intent of Federalizing every blasted stream in the nation.

I wonder if there has ever been a Constitutional test of this interpretation?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Because the Power Company only receives income from selling power they aren't concerned with rafters. If the Power Company could sell the water to the rafters or to power users then who ever valued it more would use the water at the time of their choice.

[Dinsdale]

You did'nt have problems because the dam had a maximum ramp rate set by regulations. They all do, some like New Bullards Bar Reservour have high allowed ramp rates, the river for miles downstream is scoured clean and lifeless. That is an acceptable tradeoff for some rivers.

Many of these dams are capable of sending a five foot wall of water down the river bed once or twice a day (or more often, but there would be no reason to). Nature does it once a year, maybe twice.

[Phil V.]

Setting a minimum river flow release requirement also checks erosion. Frequent rapid changes in river flow do bad things to the river bed/bank . . .

Notice the picture at the top of this article. The changes in river elevation due to hydro generation never pushes(raises) past the rather considerable zone of stable, natural rock rip-rap. . . .effectively zero augment to erosion. (the picture is typical of the stretch from Chili Bar Dam to Salmon Falls bridge and the upper reaches of Folsom Lake. This bill is a wedge to release water.

There is also rafting below Folsom/Nimbus.

The delta interests need all the tools available. The rafting industry is just one. Without other water use agendas backing this bill it would get nowhere.

[Dinsdale]

The rafting below Folsom is for drunken day rafters (nothing wrong with that, do it myself). The south fork is class four and higher during spring runoff. In any case at any time during the summer the flow on the lower American is set by Folsom dam, upriver diversions don't materially affect flow at the delta.

BTW I agree with you about SCal not getting any more water. LA should have no lawns (I'm serious about that).

[Phil V.]

. . . the river for miles downstream is scoured clean and lifeless.

Here is a picture of the South fork American River above Chili Bar Dam . . .

Notice that the bed is "scoured clean and lifeless".

The condition of the canyon is COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT of dam operation. The large area of rocky river bed is natural. In 1997 (New Years day) a warm Pacific storm dumped inches and inches or tropical rain on a deep and early Sierra snow pack. Near record flows resulted.

Even unregulated dam operation could not begin to match the fury of Mother Nature's extremes. . . She has left us a stable river bed.

Your "erosion" arguments don't float a boat.

[Dinsdale]

Notice that the bed is "scoured clean and lifeless".

Look a little closer, it is not. (grass growing in the bed, fisherys depend on this) Nice uneven riverbed. Lots of people fish the South fork. The Yuba river below Bullards Bar damn on the other hand looks a lot like the LA river, flat bottom, no plants, few fish, banks undermined. (sorry no pictures on hand, but I've been there)

Sure nature scoures the river, damns do it with less fury but much higher frequency.

My point all along is that power is only one of the purposes of a dam, others are recreation, flood control and irrigation. Each of these other activitys has economic value. Dam operators have to balance each of these while remembering that they are all subject to diminishing returns.

[Phil V.]

"scoured clean and lifeless". Look a little closer, it is not. (grass growing in the bed, fisheries depend on this)

You are correct. It is not "lifeless" . . . nor is it any more or less "verdant" than the areas in question.

Prior the hydro development of the American river canyon the "fisheries" of the lower stretches of the river(that part in question) consisted of carp, small mouth bass, frogs and crayfish. The summer water temperature was too warm for trout.

Today the water temperature is too cold for bass and most carp. TROUT LOVE IT! The ecology of the river has already adapted.

There is no substantial ecological/environmental argument to float this bill.

Uh . . . excuse me . . . there IS an argument - one that is contorted and bogus.