| McCloud Threats |
| Written by Bjorn Stromsness | |
| Friday, 28 September 2007 | |
|
The McCloud River faces two threats at the moment... one we can do something about and one we can learn from.
The McCloud River is a true gem for the State. It's a beautiful place... great for fishing, hiking, birding, etc. It is also facing two real threats. Threat 1 - The last few miles of the lower McCloud is the Bollibokka Fishing Club. This is a pay-to-play club that until recently was owned by the Hills family (think coffee). The family just sold the club for $30M+ to the Westlands Water District in a move that removes the last private inholder that would be impacted by the raising of Shasta Dam. I had spoken to Leighton Hills and he said that the club wouldn't really be impacted, but that simply isn't true... and one thing that could be lost would be at least one Wintoon village that sits just above the river. You can see very clearly the pits where structures once stood as the Wintoon fished for salmon in the McCloud. Not only would a wonderful bit or river be destroyed, but also bits of history that certainly should not be owned by Westlands. It's a real shame. The Nature Conservancy was putting together a deal, but Westlands moved in fast and with an offer over asking and the Hills Family just caved in... they have said they didn't know who Westlands was or what they would have in mind for the club, but I find that hard to believe. Threat 2 - Imagine 300 trucks a day traveling between McCloud and Mount Shasta on Highway 89... that is what will happen if Nestle gets what they want. Their proposed water bottling operation would enable them to take an unlimited amount of water from wells around McCloud. No one has any idea what impact this would have on the springs that feed the Upper McCloud River or Squaw Valley Creek. Cal Trout, Trout Unlimited and the McCloud Watershed Council are alighning against this proposal. I'd urge folks to get involved and speak out against this more horrible deal that could prove very destructive to a place that so many of us love so much. http://www...oudwatershedcouncil.org/
Bjorn |
|
| Last Updated ( Sunday, 30 September 2007 ) |
 |
McCloud Threats
Oct 05 2007 18:49:42 This thread discusses the Content article: McCloud Threats
Wow. I did not know about the Westlands deal. That stinks. |
#1844 |
| Bjorn |
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 05 2007 19:44:29 It stinks very, very badly... darn near made me cry.
|
#1848 |
 |
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 05 2007 19:49:41 Here's another interesting read from the record searchlight:
http://www.redding.com/news/2007/feb/19/flood-concerns/
It's amazing how these things happen and most people have no idea. -Greg |
#1850 |
 |
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 05 2007 20:22:28 I've been publishing a fair amount of Westlands-related news on the Trout Underground, and what the Redding Searchlight story didn't report was Westland's real motive for wanting Shasta Dam raised.
Currently, they don't receive their full allotment of water under contract (they clearly don't need all of it). They believe that if Shasta Dam is raised, they'll receive more taxpayer-subsidized water, which they can turn and sell to urban areas at an obscenely huge profit. In other words, while some would couch the raising of Shasta Dam in how it's "good for fisheries" -- the real motives of many behind the plan are purely profit based. Nice, eh? Tom Chandler |
#1853 |
| Bjorn |
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 05 2007 20:51:26 Very true Tom. It's a bad deal for just about everyone, except Westland... water politics are crazy and turn some normal allies into foes.
Cheers. B- |
#1854 |
|
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 08 2007 19:09:40 Have you any inkling what their intention is?
Never mind. Just read the article GM posted. |
#2034 |
|
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 08 2007 19:19:24 Don; They want to remove any roadblocks to the raising of Shasta Dam -- and just 6' or 18.5'. They want to raise it the full 200' (can you imagine how much of the Pit, McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers we'd lose?).
Their goal is to receive their full water allotment -- so they can turn around and sell it to urban areas at an obscene profit (after buying it at heavily subsidized rates). I covered this in the Trout Underground here: Westlands Wants Shasta Dam raised 200 feet You can see all my Westlands-related posts (no love lost) here: Westlands posts |
#2035 |
|
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 08 2007 20:34:18 Most frustrating has been the support of politicos like Feinstein on this -- people who should know better.
|
#2038 |
| nympher |
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 08 2007 21:14:41 TCWriter wrote:
Don; They want to remove any roadblocks to the raising of Shasta Dam -- and just 6' or 18.5'. They want to raise it the full 200' (can you imagine how much of the Pit, McCloud and Upper Sacramento Rivers we'd lose?). Their goal is to receive their full water allotment -- so they can turn around and sell it to urban areas at an obscene profit (after buying it at heavily subsidized rates). I covered this in the Trout Underground here: Westlands Wants Shasta Dam raised 200 feet You can see all my Westlands-related posts (no love lost) here: Westlands posts HI Tom, given that Lake Shasta is DOWNSTREAM from the pit, McCloud, and Upper Sac, no, I dont really see how we would lose ANY of those streams. You could dam lake shasta so high that no water trickled down the lower sac and it still wouldnt affect any of those three feeder streams. I know, working too many hours, everyone has a brain fart 
As far as Westlands goes, given the extreme importance of water, I think it should be legislated like a utility, including the reselling of it, IE limit the amount you can resell it drastically, well under a %100 profit |
#2040 |
 |
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 08 2007 21:17:09 That being said, information about this stuff was posted on NCFFB when it happened--perhaps some folks just weren't paying attention.
As to TCWriter's comments about Feinstein--she is almost always on the corporate side of water issues. She's a bit of a social liberal and much more conservative about some other issues. I know it's shocking, but I'm a liberal. And DiFi is not someone I align myself with for the most part. |
#2041 |
|
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 08 2007 22:05:02 I'm missing you; raise Shasta's Dam one foot, and you lose all riverbeds less than a vertical foot in elevation above the current lake level.
Raise the dam 50 feet, the water backs up higher, and you'll wave good-bye to all the riverbeds less than 50' in vertical elevation above the current lake. If you look at a topo map, you'll see that 200' of elevation will consume a lot more riverbed than you think. |
#2043 |
|
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 08 2007 22:18:16 Here's something to think about. Given the current population growth and the greater demands on water in the state, even if the dam were raised, do you think that it would ever fill? We'd have to have several years in a row of wet winters.
And something is definitely wrong if they can buy subsidized water and then sell off their surplus at a profit. That is WRONG. |
#2044 |
|
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 08 2007 22:46:38 Certainly it would fill. They typically draw very little during the winter and early spring -- the relases are often modulated to keep the lake from topping out and spilling. They'd just let less out when it wasn't needed downriver.
|
#2045 |
| Bjorn |
Re:McCloud Threats
Oct 27 2007 05:01:18 I had not realized that part of the club had been sold to John Arrillaga. I actually met him once and I worked with his daughter, Laura, for three years. I'm not sure if it was John Sr. or Jr. that did the buying, but it seems likely that it was Sr., as he has the money. He financed the Stanford Football stadium project and has several buildings named after him on the Stanford Campus. I've heard that the part he bought may be for sale again already.
Tom, you hear anything about that? |
#2959 |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
