|
Long-delayed project now needs new state OK for American River water storage
State cancels Auburn dam water rights
SACRAMENTO – The State Water Resources Control Board revoked U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water rights permits Tuesday for the long-delayed Auburn dam project. In a 5-0 vote, the state board added another strong reason not to build a multi-billion-dollar dam project that has been inactive for several years, a dam opponent said. Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, said that there would be no way the bureau would have been able to get an extension on its 38-year-old permit to divert water off the north fork of the American river without new, extensive environmental studies based on modern-day attitudes, policies and laws. With the vote, the water reserved since 1970 for a 2.2-million-acre-foot storage and flood-control structure is available for potential use by other jurisdictions, with San Joaquin and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District already filing applications. “Auburn dam was already dead,” Jennings said. “This is a nail in the coffin of a dream.” Tim Woodall, president of Auburn’s Protect American River Canyons, said that while the board decision was gratifying, it wasn’t a surprise. The state water board’s decision was based on a staff analysis, which concludes that the bureau had not acted diligently on the permit to build a dam since work stopped in 1975. That lengthy delay amounted to “cold storage” of water rights to the detriment of other jurisdictions that were in a position to proceed, a prosecution team led by Division of Water Rights’ David Rose said. Woodall said that once a water-right permit is issued, California law requires the permit holder to act promptly to construct the project the permit was issued for. “While it became increasingly apparent over the years that Auburn dam was an obsolete project that would never be revived, there were some die-hard dam supporters who refused to accept that reality,” Woodall said. “This decision ends the debate, because without the permits, there is no project.” Auburn’s Gary Estes, who has fought the dam as a PARC member for nearly 20 years, told the board before the vote that the political will on the part of the federal government to build the dam has long been absent. Between 1983 and 1998, 12 bills were introduced in Washington, D.C. to authorize the dam or move it forward, with none passing, Estes said. “Revocation is well overdue and on time,” Estes said. Unlike many hearings involving the dam over the past three decades, Tuesday’s was relatively sedate, with about 50 people attending the session and emotions never bubbling over. One of the speakers to call for water rights to stay in place, California Farm Bureau water resources director Danny Merkley said his organization believes the dam is critical for flood protection and consistent supply for water deliveries as well as storage. “This is no time to limit our options,” Merkley said. Alexandra Snyder, a staff member representing 3rd District U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren, called on the board to postpone the vote until early in 2009 to provide congressional oversight during a time when the state is undergoing drought conditions. She said it would be questionable to exclude the Auburn dam in the future. The board started its revocation action earlier this year and held a day-long public hearing in July. The bureau issued objections to the revocation in writing but sent no speaker to Tuesday’s meeting. Rose’s Water Rights Division team concluded that the issue wasn’t whether the dam project itself should be approved. “Revoking the water right permits will not necessarily foreclose the possibility of constructing the project,” he said. “If Congress ever re-authorizes the project, Reclamation could file new water right applications.” Even if the permits were not revoked, the bureau would have to obtain a time extension from the board – a process that “would be substantially the same” as applying for a new permit, Rose said. Ron Stork, senior policy advocate for Friends of the River, described the decision as important both “substantively and symbolically.” “First of all, they don’t have a permit now,” Stork said. “It’s the state of California saying you don’t have permission to build an Auburn dam. That’s the closing of a chapter.” The Journal’s Gus Thomson can be reached at gust@goldcountrymedia.com.
|
Change Location:
|
Wow.
The American River Canyon.
Finally worth more than a dam.
The whole area is a sh-hole, full of star thistle and other noxious weeds. Flooding it would be the best thing that ever happened to the area. A nice lake would be a pleasure compared to an area with difficult access for most residents.
Somewhere Doolittle and McClintock are crying...
So we don't forgot the good old days, here's some great fear-mongering from Doolittle from a journal article in May when the new auburn water diversion was Christened:
"Doolittle urged a crowd of 150 sprinkled with local elected officials to aggressively fight to maintain water rights for an Auburn dam. He said that the dam will be built — after a catastrophic flood occurs in the Sacramento area.
'The time will come,' Doolittle said. 'And if we don’t have the water rights, we’re dead.'"
I guess we are all DOOMED now that the water we would have safely corralled behind the dam will come to destroy us all just as Doolittle predicted. STOP THE FLOWING MENACE! Dam them before they Damn you!!!
Too bad nothing worthwhile would grow there. Would have been nice to log it before filling it up.
PeaBrain: You're either worthy of the new appellation I've just assigned you, or you're just trying to get people's goat.
The Doolittle premise has always been interesting...and perplexing. It goes like this:
When that 100 Year Storm comes it will dump so much water that it will inundated he Central Valley...and that it will mysteriously only drop rain on the American River basin, not in any of the canyons north and south. Thus, the Auburn Dam alone would be the savior from the flood.
Sheer stupidity.
Good riddance to the Dam idea!
I would rather see the water storage. Water is a necessary need for everyone. Maybe the lack of rain we bring back a dust bowl for central California. Time to wait and see.
water? electricity? recreation? Naaaahhhhhh...we don't need no stinkin water, electricity or recreation. Its much better to have a big hole with two or three river rafting companies making millions.
There is more to the canyon than river rafting. It is also home to many speces of fauna, a great place to hike or ride a horse or even a mountain bike. It provides a lot of recreational opportnities as is.
The only reason this Dam was pushed was for the developers to continue building homes in the flood plain, just note what is happening in Sutter County where flood insurance rates have gone through the roof. The buyers were mislead but the develpers made a clean getaway. Once again the taxpayers are left holding the bag.
Now what was that gift of land for a Private University?
This is the door that kicks Doolittle in the rear. If this was a part of McClintock's agenda, then it can kick him in the rear as well.
Looms; a small fraction of the number of people that *could* enjoy a lake, will enjoy the canyon.
Yes, there are flora and fauna there like rattlensnakes, poison oak, manzanita and buck brush. If a dam were present, the living things would move upstream or to the shoreline, and the vegetation would be submerged.
The total life in the area would go up though because the fish within the lake would be thousands of times greater in volume, quality and size.
"The fish in the lake would be thousands of times greater in volume" What??? The fish would be greater because of what? I don't think you finished your sentence.
More to think about. I think I remember reading recently.... This next year farmers are getting 15% of their allotted water. So more costly goods... more imported goods.... more of our money leaving the country. yes we need water storage for dry years.
Now the several hundred thousand users of the canyons can continue to enjoy the beauty and splender that exists within the North Fork and Middle Fork American canyons, and at no charge. A lake would cost money to use and eliminate some 50 miles of trails - greatly reducing the number of users. It would also promote noise, air and water pollution through the use of fossil fuel burning watercraft, and offer no real water storage solution. To boot, it was planned on a seismic fault site. Talk about a flood danger to the valley. Auburn Dam, R.I.P.
According to the Auburn State Recreation Area Web site:
"In the heart of the gold country, the Auburn State Recreation Area (Auburn SRA) covers 40-miles of the North and Middle Forks of the American river. Once teeming with thousands of gold miners, the area is now a natural area offering a wide variety of recreation opportunities to over 500,000 visitors a year. Major recreational uses include hiking, swimming, boating, fishing, camping, mountain biking, gold panning, equestrian/horseback riding trails and off-highway motorcycle riding..."
More recent publications estimate that over a million recreationalists per year enjoy the canyon!
Other non-lake related activities include: photography, rafting, rock climbing, swimming, etc. Features and attractions preserved for your enjoyment include: the world famous Western States and Tevis Cup trails, Lake Clementine, Mammoth Bar OHV park, historic Hawver Cave, historic "no-hands bridge", historic "lime rock", Codfish Falls, Yankee Jim's bridge, and historic gold mining and Native American archeological sites, etc...
Take a closer look and you'll see that the American River is more than just rafts and thistles.
Auburnewt, R_T loves Doolittle and McClintock, what more is there to say.I live right by Folsom Lake and don't go there in the summer at all. For one thing I can't stand jet skis, especially when they just go around in circles buzzing like a mad bumblebee, they do it right by the shore and could care less that your boat is being beat up against the shore.
I white water kayak between Ponderosa and Clementine, Sea kayak and water ski at Clementine, the wife and I ride our horses on many of the trails, as a matter of fact, she's there as I type this and I enjoy riding my mountain bike on the trails also. I use the heck out of the area.
We are very fortunate to have such a gem in our backyard, in return for this gift please pack any trash you find out and let's keep the gem sparkling.
Have a great day.
pam95650 - It is not "part of" McClintock's agenda. It is his whole agenda. We endured John Doolittle and now we'll endure Tom Do-Nothing.