The Northern California Fly Fishing Board

As I mentioned above, it we started reclaiming waste water throughout the state we'd 'conserve' and enormous amount of water.

http://www...ory.php?storyId=18409513

It does make very little sense that we use drinking water to flush toilets or keep our lawns green. Showering... now that makes sense.

B-

And THAT is a job for the PR Dept.; to get people to drink it.

I think Bjorn dealt with most of your points sufficiently, but I don't think he covered the logic of your points. Just because someone has followed the tradition of farming in a certain place for a few generations, doesn't mean that it should continue, just because it's traditional. With that way of thinking, we'd continue to do all kind of foolish things, just because they were "traditional". I think that it is important to look at the reasons behind some of the things that we do, and if they are a bad idea in our modern life, then perhaps it's time branch out and try something new.

All the same, I do appreciate the opposite POV on an issue, which leads to good discussion and challenging thoughts, but not when it descends into flaming and personal attacks, not that that has happened here.

Cheers!

--FlyGuy (Dave)

I put the statement about dams and groundwater to our conservation guys... here is one of the responses.

Groundwater storage does require facilities to divert the water and temporarily store it over permeable ground so that seeps into the aquifer. Generally, these facilities are smaller and less damaging to the environment than large surface storage dams and reservoirs. You can also use passive designs. The flood bypass system in the Sacramento Vally takes flood overflow from the Sacramento and Feather Rivers. Some of that water flows into the Delta but quite a bit seeps into the ground. The San Joaquin has no such flood bypass system and a significant groundwater overdraft problem. The Sacramento Valley have few if any groundwater overdraft problems. Interesting, no?


That's from Steve, our Conservation Director.

B-

I mentioned something like "no new dams" to our Conservation Director and he pointed out that we actually aren't opposed to all new dams, just the one's that have been proposed. It was a very good point... we aren't a radical group that says no to every project... only the ones that don't make sense... here is his reply...


We are opposed to some of the dams proposed by the Gov and others because they are too expensive, environmentally destructive, and ineffective (in terms of actually producing more water).

Besides, most groundwater recharge projects use existing facilities.

We've stored more than 5 million acre feet of water underground in the San Joaquin Valley and I don't believe any of these projects required the construction of a new dam.



B-

I saw a study of a Central Valley irrigation project, and most are the same, that concluded that all the $$$$$$$ could have been invested in muni-bonds and the interest just given to the farmers with more net economic gain and you'd still have the principal. If they want to grow rice and alphalfa in the Mojave instead of where there is water that's fine; BUT I don't want my tax $$$ to have to pay for it because its a bad investment and they can't get loans on their own.
I resent having to pay to have our fish killed for the benefit of the international conglamorates now that our small farmers have been plowed under.