Better start doing your rain and snow dances or praying

Daren Prociw · Post by **Daren Prociw** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:52 pm

The California Department of Water Resources did their 2nd water water survey today and they found we are only at 68% of water for this time of year. They estimate we need 12 FEET of snow in February just to get AVERAGE!!! Oh man, I don't know if there is any hope for Folsom, Oroville or Shasta. Delta is gonna be very crowded this year.

RipnRog · Post by **RipnRog** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 1:57 pm

well folsom has come up over 5 feet in the past week..... and there is rain and snow in the forcast so there is still hope.

DAN · Post by **DAN** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:25 pm

It's Keep Praying for me, but whatever y'all prefer can't hurt

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 1:36 pm

Lake county has had about 3" of rain this year. It all soaked into the ground. The lake level was 1.16' Rumsey on November 1st (The low point) Today the level is 1.16' Rumsey. You won't be able to get your boat in by June. You'll be walking a couple hundred feet out on lake bed to fish from shore.

Alex M. · Post by **Alex M.** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 2:06 pm

This blowz!
Our already "small" lakes down here are starting to look more like ponds....seriously!

Greg....Where ya been? I missed seeing your random

animations on your signature line.....What the heck is she doing, sucking on an iphone?

BMX Bassin · Post by **BMX Bassin** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:28 pm

I wish I was an iphone......

texas john · Post by **texas john** » Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:12 pm

Im affraid we will need a March Miracle if we are going to even get the lakes back to where they were last year. I have heard that Shasta/Folsom is on the rise since this last storm, nothing from Oroville. If it is 12' we need I suggest all of us take a few of our hard earned dollars and go drop them into slot machines at your local indian casino. Maybe this will enlighten them to help out our cause...

Bill K · Post by **Bill K** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:36 am

If we think our lakes are bad now, just think how they will be if we do not get a heavy rain/snow pac in late Feb and March. We will not be launching our boats this spring, or at least no easily. May be fishing out of the old cartops and closer to launch sites. Bill K

some guy · Post by **some guy** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:49 am

if we cant launch atleast we will have a healthy spawn.

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:34 am

Alex M. wrote:Greg....Where ya been?...

Just hangin around bent over with my pants down waiting for the economy to do what it has to do.

Alex M. · Post by **Alex M.** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 11:25 am

BMX Bassin wrote:I wish I was an iphone......

Big Ed · Post by **Big Ed** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:51 pm

Daren Prociw wrote:The California Department of Water Resources did their 2nd water water survey today and they found we are only at 68% of water for this time of year.

The survey furthur reveals that the existing snowpack has an alarming detail that is different from the norm. In past history the water content of snow is far above 90%. The average water content in the existing snow pack is only 61% water which creates further speculation that we are in bad shape for the projected future.

For those of us in employed by the different California Water agencies accross the state we have seen these projected forecasts come full circle. The current drought we are in started with the winter of 2005 and it will take several years of above average rainfall just to get back what we have lost. The groundwater levels have again reached all time lows and there is no real hope in sight.

There are only two things in life that we cannot do with out. One is air and the other is water. you can live with out food but you cannot live with out water or air.

We need a miracle here!

Later; Big Ed!

912nitro · Post by **912nitro** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:54 pm

I moved to east bay in may of 92 & Ca. was in the 3rd year of what turned out to be a 5 year drought.
All east bay communities were rationing water.
Berryessa was down around 100 ft.
Some of the locals said they would never live long enough to see it full again.
It rained 6 months in 1995, & i saw water running over the glory hole ( as they call the berryessa overflow )
Oroville has such a hugh drainage area, & they were letting water out the maximum amount that wouldnt flood below the dam, & it was still on the rise.
Luckily things subsided before anything flooded.
There was so much water in the ground that it was forming little creeks between the hills for 2 weeks after the rain stopped at berryessa.

Big Ed · Post by **Big Ed** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:16 pm

912nitro wrote:There was so much water in the ground that it was forming little creeks between the hills for 2 weeks after the rain stopped at berryessa.

Thats exactly what we dont need. Alot of rain in a short period of time does not help the underground water bearing zones fill up. When it rains it all turns into run off and even that sometimes is to dirty and full of suspended matter.

What we really need is moderate and steady rainfall over long periods of time. Water perculation is a very slow process which would take years for recovery. Just because the lake fills up doesnt mean the ground does. It would be better than the alternative thats for sure.

Later; Big Ed!

Greg_Cornish · Post by **Greg_Cornish** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:45 pm

Big Ed wrote:
912nitro wrote:It would be better than the alternative thats for sure.

Later; Big Ed!

Quote for truth

mark poulson · Post by **mark poulson** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:21 am

It's my understanding that a lot of the central valley has an impermeable layer down about 12', so water that floods doesn't really perc. down much.
We need snow, and more reservoirs to store run off (like Arnie said).
And desal. plants in the south, where we have lots of salt water.
As a builder, I'm constantly amazed how developers are able to build big tracts without adequate water supply.
Talk about overtaxing our infrastructure.
They use some kind of system like the carbon credit deal, but it amounts to just doing what they want once they grease the right palms.
Money talks.........

Big Ed · Post by **Big Ed** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:17 am

mark poulson wrote:We need snow, and more reservoirs to store run off (like Arnie said). And desal. plants in the south, where we have lots of salt water.

Mark, You are absolutly right!

We need more infrastructure to capture the snow run off and what little bit of rain we do get. Anybody who has ever been to the Cal Delta can see hundreds of millions of gallons of fresh water draining to the ocean every single day.

The problem with surface water (rain/snow/lakes/rivers) is that you need surface water treatment plants that will treat the water and we just dont have that many. Desalinization is always a last resort because it uses electricity for its process and the finished water cost is lower than the actual power cost to make it.

If we all conserved a bit more and managed what we do have a little bit better we could probably get through this! Its not looking good.

Later; Big Ed!

mark poulson · Post by **mark poulson** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:12 pm

Big Ed wrote:
mark poulson wrote:
Mark, You are absolutly right!

Later; Big Ed!

Damn, Ed, I always knew you were intelligent!

You'd think, at some point, common sense would kick in, and Sacramento would see better water management and more water supply is vital to our State.
You'd think.....I guess they don't.