Lake Mendocino inches higher; big storm on the way

There. Now the drought and global warming hysteria crowd can relax.

what next wrote:

There. Now the drought and global warming hysteria crowd can relax.

Absolutely NOT!!! Take heed, conserve water ALL THE TIME because you never know what the next rainy season will bring; perhaps it will bring nothing.

anb wrote:

<quoted text>Absolutely NOT!!! Take heed, conserve water ALL THE TIME because you never know what the next rainy season will bring; perhaps it will bring nothing.

Dont ever eat because it could run out tomorrow.
Dont leave your house because something will happen.
The chem trails will get you.
Bush will declare marshall law and suspend the constitution.

Stupid ignorant paranoid fools.
Mendocino is full of them..
And it seems Missouri too.

we should still try to conserve. think about it, would you rather have to go without completely?

Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Dont ever eat because it could run out tomorrow.
Dont leave your house because something will happen.
The chem trails will get you.
Bush will declare marshall law and suspend the constitution.
Stupid ignorant paranoid fools.
Mendocino is full of them..
And it seems Missouri too.

We're talking about a natural resource we are dependent upon for sustaining life you idiot. Conserving water has nothing to do with paranoia. It has to do with common sense when we know all too well droughts are inevitable, we are possibly brinking on climate change, and we cannot predict the weather a year from now. It is people like you who live for today and couldn't give a shit about tomorrow.

anb wrote:

<quoted text>We're talking about a natural resource we are dependent upon for sustaining life you idiot. Conserving water has nothing to do with paranoia. It has to do with common sense when we know all too well droughts are inevitable, we are possibly brinking on climate change, and we cannot predict the weather a year from now. It is people like you who live for today and couldn't give a **** about tomorrow.

Every time you focus on conservation you are giving a developer the tools he needs to increase the demand for the resources.
We NEED to hit bottom before a tectonic shift happens.
This tinkering on the edges for our own mental relief is not actually accomplishing anything and is in fact hastening our demise.

Donna wrote:

<quoted text>
Every time you focus on conservation you are giving a developer the tools he needs to increase the demand for the resources.
We NEED to hit bottom before a tectonic shift happens.
This tinkering on the edges for our own mental relief is not actually accomplishing anything and is in fact hastening our demise.

Have never thought of it in that light before. Thank you.

Donna wrote:

<quoted text>
Every time you focus on conservation you are giving a developer the tools he needs to increase the demand for the resources.
We NEED to hit bottom before a tectonic shift happens.
This tinkering on the edges for our own mental relief is not actually accomplishing anything and is in fact hastening our demise.

So the only way to solve our problem is to make it worse by not conserving? That is kind of like telling someone with a drinking problem to drink up! A self induced disaster is not the best way to solve our problems. Everyone needs to conserve water, even misguided intellects from Marin County. If you want to oppose development, there are less destructive ways to do it.

Realist wrote:

<quoted text> That is kind of like telling someone with a drinking problem to drink up!

I hate to say it, but sometimes that's the only way an alcoholic will get better. I know it sounds crazy. Believe me, once a drug takes over your mind and body, near death is the only awakening. On topic, I too believe we should always have conservation on our minds; regardless of the lake levels.

Those of us on private wells have no choice but to conserve. Those who don't usually wind up paying for expensive water deliveries in late summer and fall. Then they start conserving. Sounds a little backwards to me. As for those on puplic water, I believe charging MUCH more for over consumption should be incentive to conserve. Personally, I think this should be mandatory year round no matter how much water there is. That way no one is being rationed, they are just being charged a lot more than normal for using a lot more than normal. The choice to conserve or not would be up to the consumer.

I read today that the water problem in California is not merely an issue of Global Warming or drought conditions. It has more to do with the fact that the Population of California has doubled over the past 40 years due mostly to the rise in immigration.
At 100 gallons per day per person, we have went from 17.5 million people in the state to 35 Million. It is also estimated the population of Calif. in the upcoming forty years will go to over 50 million. A little conservation just isn't going to cut it. Talking about infrastructure won't either.
Somebody needs to come up with a better plan and put it into place.... Fast.

How much water in Lake Mendocino is actually coming directly from the Head Waters of the Eel River.
Drain lake Pillsbury, end the theft from the Eel River via the Defunct PGE Diversion Canal.
www.eelriver.org
Return the Eel River Water taken to feed Sonoma Counties Toxic Pesticide Grape Fields. FREE THE EEL RIVER!

Seven Reasons to Save the Eel River
and Take Down the Dams

Reflections on the tragic 100th anniversary of PG&E’s Potter Valley Project (PVP) tunnel, Cape Horn Dam, Van Arsdale Lake, and later construction of Scott Dam and Lake Pillsbury.

David Keller, Bay Area Director, Friends of the Eel River

The Eel River has been severely damaged during the last century by diverting water through the PVP to the Russian River. It’s time to restore the health and wealth taken from the Eel River.

Here are 7 reasons to take down the dams and save the Eel River.

1. They don’t make rivers like they used to: fish, wildlife and human friendly, abundant and self-cleansing, resilient and self-sustaining. Restoration of the Eel River and other coastal rivers is essential for all species’ survival and prosperity in the future. Life depends on water, and we must stop abusing this incredible treasure, and our soil, timber and fishery resources, until they are damaged beyond repair. If we continue to practice “cut and run” water exploitation, where will we go next when these resources are gone?

2. We are not willing to allow the extinction of California’s native coastal Salmon (Coho, Chinook) and Steelhead. Their survival and recovery includes restoration on all our coastal rivers and streams, including the Eel River, which was once one of California’s most abundant salmon bearing rivers. Its 3684 square mile watershed is the third largest in California, and cannot be lost as productive home to these federally and state protected species.

Damming and diverting Eel River flows prevents fish from migrating to spawning gravels in over 750 stream miles of prime, snow-melt fed cold water headwaters habitat, bringing ocean nutrients upstream, and prevents juveniles from journeying to the Pacific. Water temperatures are too hot and flows too low to support healthy salmonid populations. Dam elevations too high for fish ladders and poorly designed fish screens at the tunnel intakes also take an extreme toll on fish.

West coast salmon populations have collapsed. The 2008 commercial and sport ocean salmon seasons have been closed for the first time ever in all of California and most of Oregon, costing millions of dollars to the local economies.
www.eelriver.org

3. We can no longer build our civilization as if there are no limits to water, wildlife and energy. Generations of engineers dammed and diverted rivers, based on the perception that there were abundant natural resources and scarce people. But, now there are abundant people, scarce natural resources, and global climate change. Water viewed as a commodity for sale to the highest bidders, will not get us through the next century. To ensure a sustainable future, engineers must be given new goals and tasks by our policy makers: how to get the same – or better – results for us while using far less water and energy. Higher efficiencies and reuse of highly treated wastewater to offset current and future potable water use are critical components of our new path of demand reductions. We need effective economic and legal incentives to leave more water in our rivers.

We must fundamentally change the directions given to our engineers, bureaucrats and utility rate setters by public policy makers. This includes Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), and a host of other legislative and regulatory agencies. These agencies have failed to protect and restore the public trust resources, including our National Wild and Scenic designated Eel River.

4. The Eel River Watershed belongs to the people of California. Under California’s constitution, citizens own all the water in the state. Water law allows you to get a ‘right’ to use water in a reasonable and beneficial way, but not ownership of the water. The Constitution importantly prohibits “the waste or unreasonable use or unreasonable method of use or unreasonable method of diversion of water.”
www.eelriver.org

The California Supreme Court has concluded that “the public trust is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands, and tidelands… The State has an affirmative duty to take the public trust into account in the planning and allocation of water resources, and to protect public trust uses whenever feasible.”(National Audubon Society v. Superior Court of Alpine County).

We have a legal, ethical and moral obligation to be good stewards, to preserve the value and health of our watersheds and their complex environment, and to protect our common resources forever. The current damages to the Eel River violate these principles of law and stewardship.

5. The Russian River doesn’t need the water diverted from the Eel River. 120,000 to 180,000 acre feet of water are diverted year round from the Eel River through the PVP, then released into the Russian River. Many stakeholders have become dependent on this century-old transfer, and fear relinquishing the water wealth. From Potter Valley agriculture to filling Lake Mendocino, the Eel’s water is sent down the Russian River to serve municipal, agricultural, residential and industrial growth and users in Mendocino, Sonoma and Marin Counties. Yet, not one dime has been paid to communities in the Eel River watershed for this theft.

According to the SWRCB, major segments of the Russian River are ‘over appropriated’: more water is taken in dry seasons from the river and its tributaries than is naturally coming into the system from rainfall, snowmelt, aquifer and groundwater discharges. This illegal abuse of the Russian River is masked by the transfers of Eel River water.

This practice damages both rivers. Russian River residents, water suppliers and businesses must learn how to live within their own water budget. This transfer of water has cost the Eel River’s recreational fishing and boating industry over $6M per year in lost income, jobs and productivity. If Russian River customers’ water bills actually included the costs of restoring the Eel River, watershed management practices would change rapidly.
www.eelriver.org

6. The PVP is obsolete and is bad for river health: neither Scott nor Cape Horn dams were designed for flood control. Instead, they provide flows to PG&E’s now antiquated, inefficient hydropower generator, producing a maximum of 9.2mW when everything is working. This is not “green energy”. More efficient electrical usage in the service area alone could easily save more than PVP generates.

The dams hinder fish migration and prevent new gravels and sediments from flowing downstream to replenish spawning grounds, and cause increased erosion of the river bed. Dams fill with these sediments, reducing their capacity, and have lifespans further shortened by seismic and geotechnical faults. The costs of correcting these and other problems are staggering, and PG&E has no budget to fix them. The true cost of this electricity is huge.

7. Salmon and Steelhead are not cute, furry and cuddly, but they have been part of the complex life of the Eel River for millions of years. The Eel River is a remarkably inspiring and beautiful river. Let’s not lose this all during our watch.

Illonois? Missouri? Hawaii? Why don't you guys concentrate on worrying about your own back yard.

Maybe all of those hatchet-faced old hippie women and the rain dance will take credit for the rain!

It's time for the public to come to terms with the excessive Grape Growing. Not to argue the good or bad of marijuana, but overall, you can use Marijuana for total nutrition. It's important that our water is used to sustain life. The majority of grapes are used for alcoholic beverages like WINE!! not nutrition. The majority of GRAPES are grown for profit not nutrition. Important choices need to be made. Everyone that lives in this county, please give thought to this issue. It's a well known fact how much water is used grape (wine) growers. Winter water supply is being depleted by frost protection. Summer water is illegally pumped from the Russian River to grow grapes for alcohol, not food! Not to Mention the EXTREMELY TOXIC CHEMICAL FERTILIZERS DISTRIBUTED OVER THOUSANDS OF ACRES OF GRAPES WHICH DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO THE RUSSIAN, Just Smell the Sulfur!
Its time to give that water back to the Eel River!
Visit Friends of the eel River for information on what you can do to help!
www.eelriver.org

Eel River spawning Chinook on 1/1/09.
There is still life on the Eel River. Now is the time to RESTORE THE EEL RIVER! Decomission the Lake Pillsbury Dam!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
www.eelriver.org

David Keller makes great arguments for saving the Eel, which should apply to all rivers and water resources. The real challenge in reclaiming the public ownership of this finite resource is in the language of the law and the means by which to enforce the law. Since it has become clear that ground water levels directly affect surface water flows, public officials have been discussing how to regulate ground water. Although some form of unregulated "voluntary compliance" measures will most likely emerge, rather than meaningful laws, we may only have public shaming as a form of societal control of our water supply. Ideally water use should be greatly regulated and "reasonable use must be defined in quantitative terms as per person usage. Currently we have a "use it or lose it" water law. This antiquated system provides no incentive for conservation. This is why our water resources are over allocated and why no water district is willing to reduce their historic use. We need to overturn this bad law and replace it with a system that allows allocation of "environmental water", which leaves sustainable supplies of water in the ground and streams to support other forms of life that are imminently dependent on these resources for their very survival. If for example, the VOM Water District could reduce their overall usage by 15%, they should be able to keep the 15% savings as an environmental allocation. This is good stewardship and good business, because it retains quality of life and allows for "water banking" for future use the resource during drought periods.

As for the population growth issue, politics has trumped sustainability. In a public presentation years back, a fish biologist included a photocopy of a SF Chronicle article from 1976, which reported that the CA legislature refused to regulate development based on available water supplies. Yes, our government representative decided not to limit growth even if the most basic resource for living was not available. This is pure money politics. Until this fundamental flaw is corrected, we will continue to see unsustainable pressures applied to our natural resources, and if history is any measure of the future, nature will not win, and unfortunately we all lose because our air, water, land, and the beauty of nature that surrounds us will decay and leave us wanting or leaving. I personally refuse to trash the place i live and hope that we, the public, can change the way people relate to finite natural resources, and reclaim the political landscape long enough to exact the legal changes needed to put enforceable laws in place that define and protect these resources from "unreasonable uses.

Donna wrote:

<quoted text>
Every time you focus on conservation you are giving a developer the tools he needs to increase the demand for the resources.
We NEED to hit bottom before a tectonic shift happens.
This tinkering on the edges for our own mental relief is not actually accomplishing anything and is in fact hastening our demise.

You're right...the last time we did conservation, a developer bough up all of hookups in various districts in the valley, tying up future development, and causing a moritorium.