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
Favoured: 0
