Jump to content






Photo
- - - - -

Get Your Boating In - Lake Going To 5Mph In 2Wk


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 Sandman

Sandman

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts

Posted 28 July 2016 - 04:12 PM

A better BUT still short boating season this year..  They have been dumping water like its nobody's business the last 2mo.  Saw on the news the lake will be going to 5 MPH by mid Aug.  Look at the chart vs historical avg and you can get an idea of how much they have been dumping in such a short time.

 

http://cdec.water.ca...ction?resid=FOL



#2 2 Aces

2 Aces

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 29 July 2016 - 07:49 AM

Pretty stupid, but we already know that, right ??

 

And all driven by a certain political ideology and a whackjob religion called *ENVIRONMENTALISM*. 

 

My God, this State is run by morons...or just crazy people.  :CRAZYLOCO:



#3 Carl G

Carl G

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,674 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 July 2016 - 08:13 AM

There has been one gate open for the last week+ on Nimbus Dam.  Even my nine year old said "Why are they doing that?"



#4 Sandman

Sandman

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts

Posted 29 July 2016 - 08:26 AM

I guess we can all feel good about saving that 2" Delta Smelt. God forbid we have another winter like two years ago

#5 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 July 2016 - 01:09 PM

I figured the releases were up by the way the river looked when crossing Watt & Howe this week.

 

I thought the reason Folsom Lake releases were heavier last year was because they wanted to leave as much water as possible in Shasta so there would be cold water for the fish when it was needed.  So why are the releases so heavy from Folsom this year when all the reservoirs were in good shape? 



#6 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 29 July 2016 - 02:09 PM

I figured the releases were up by the way the river looked when crossing Watt & Howe this week.

 

I thought the reason Folsom Lake releases were heavier last year was because they wanted to leave as much water as possible in Shasta so there would be cold water for the fish when it was needed.  So why are the releases so heavy from Folsom this year when all the reservoirs were in good shape? 

 

The greater releases from Folsom are to allow more to be stored in Shasta to preserve the cold water pool there for Salmon in the fall.  They killed off most of the salmon because, even though they tried to keep enough cold water, it didn't  turn out that way.  The other reason for the larger current releases are because they promised more water to the south state farmers. I don't think the current releases have anything to do with the smelt.

 

The other thing to keep in mind is that it's a big system, of which Folsom is only one small part. If you check Shasta, it is currently at near record levels, particularly for this time of year. New Bullard's bar is also pretty full, and Oroville was near record levels and only dropped below average in the past month. Others vary from near average to very low.  Bottom line is you can't just look at Folsom and evaluate how the state's water is being managed. 



#7 Sandman

Sandman

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts

Posted 29 July 2016 - 02:48 PM

The "system" may be big but once our little lake is drained WE are screwed regardless of how full the other lakes in the state are. Really surprised there is not more local outcry going on given the looks of that chart. WE are definately getting the short end of the stick vs other lakes in the state.

#8 2 Aces

2 Aces

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 29 July 2016 - 03:17 PM

Guys like tony don't understand that. Short-sighted.

Not sure he's credible. But he may have an agenda.

 

Be careful who you listen to. Lots of disinformation out there.



#9 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 29 July 2016 - 09:19 PM

The "system" may be big but once our little lake is drained WE are screwed regardless of how full the other lakes in the state are. Really surprised there is not more local outcry going on given the looks of that chart. WE are definately getting the short end of the stick vs other lakes in the state.

 

That is my concern as well.  It is our only water supply.

 

Tony, I appreciate the explanation, but it seems like there is always a new reason every year why Folsom is more heavily relied upon and drained at a faster rate.



#10 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 30 July 2016 - 02:39 PM

Tony, you seem to know a lot about the operations at the spillway.  What is with the concrete/muddy water near the spillway within the buoys?



#11 Sandman

Sandman

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,547 posts

Posted 30 July 2016 - 04:03 PM

Looks to me like they are dredging out the area in front of the spillway.

#12 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 30 July 2016 - 06:42 PM

Looks to me like they are dredging out the area in front of the spillway.

Thanks, Sandman.  I hadn't been that way in a while and just noticed it today.



#13 folsom500

folsom500

    Folsom Gardner

  • Moderator
  • 6,562 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 01 August 2016 - 05:38 AM

Looks to me like they are dredging out the area in front of the spillway.

I was wondering as well as it only changed a few days ago that i know of..

 

They are also moving a lot of granite from the new spillway area to over by Dike 8.  Guess this is all a result of the recent blasting ?

 

i am really sad to see them drain the lake so fast...  


Another great  day in the adventure of exploration and sight.

 

 

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has"
-Margaret Mead-


#14 tony

tony

    Hall Of Famer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,396 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Historic District

Posted 01 August 2016 - 09:58 AM

Guys like tony don't understand that. Short-sighted.

Not sure he's credible. But he may have an agenda.

 

Be careful who you listen to. Lots of disinformation out there.

Aces,

 

So, please explain why you think I am short-sighted. Read my post. I did not  express an opinion one way or the other on whether drawing down Folsom was a good idea.  My point was merely to note out that blaming the draw down on smelt is oversimplifying the operations of a very complex system, of which Folsom is only one, medium-sized part. And, the evidence at hand is that smelt have very little to do with the increased releases. My post was based on reviewing on reviewing the current water storage charts for the major northern CA reservoirs, review of inflow/outlfow data from the USBR, and combining that with published information on the subject. One key part of which was recent reports that, based on pressure from the CA congressional delegation, more water was being released for farmers in the SJ valley.

 

So, here's some more detailed facts: today there will be about 21,0000 cfs entering the delta (almost all of it from the Sacramento River, and just under 25% of that -- 5,000 cfs -- from Folsom Lake). Of that, slightly more than 1/3 (7,700 cfs) will be outflow from the delta to the bay. A larger portion (about 8,800 cfs) will be "exported" via pumping plants, and the remainder, about 4,500 cfs, will be "used" in the delta. "Used" means infiltrated into the ground, evaporated or (most of it) pulled out for irrigation and other consumptive uses within the delta. So, nearly two thirds of the water entering the delta is being used for farming or quenching the thirst of southern CA cities. Is that not enough?  Should that num ber be 75%, 90%, 100% (that about where the SJ and Colorado rivers are). Should all of our rivers be dry when they reach the ocean?  We're not that far from that. As it is, only one river on the western slope of the Sierras is free flowing the Cosumnes), and it is not one of the largest rivers by any stretch (that's probably why they didn't bother damning it).

 

Should we be concerned about the lowering of Folsom? Yes, but I wouldn't get that excited about it just yet, as the lake is still at 70% of average for the date, and has more than twice the storage as it did this time last year. I am not privy to the actual plan (Could not find it on line), but I assume that they will cut back on releases from Folsom soon, as it is approaching the time when the cold water from Shasta will be needed for the salmon run.

 

Am I an expert on water issues in CA? No, but I have done structural work on dozens of dams across the country, including a couple of projects at Folsom Dam (10 years ago, one of which was studying mechanization of the temperature shutters used to control the level at which water is taken out of the lake, and thus the downstream water temperature critical to salmon and steelhead), and in the process, learned a few things about everything from dam operations to the thermal sensitivity of salmon and steelhead (I also payed attention when visiting the hatchery with my kids :D: ).

 

Not sure why anyone who disagrees with you must have an agenda? Mine: well, besides promoting active transportation and livable cities that are closely related to it. trying to keep discussions here based as much as possible on facts. In this particular case, one of those facts is that the salmon run on the Sacramento river has had two years of nearly complete die off. Given that they mostly return in three-year cycles, this is the critical year for the survival of Ca's largest(?) salmon run. So, at this point, given the amount of water available in northern CA, I'm more concerned about the survival of the species than some risk to Folsom's water supply (after all, they already spent the money to be able to pump from a depleted pool to cover Folsom in an emergency, so the insurance policy is already in affect).

 

No, I don't know about the muddy water, but I do know they have been dredging at the entrance to the new spillway, so that is a perfectly reasonable explanation.



#15 2 Aces

2 Aces

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 01 August 2016 - 10:36 AM

Aces,

 

I'm more concerned about the survival of the species than some risk to Folsom's water supply 

 

 

Tony, this is the problem with the militant environmental movement.

 

When the "protection" of this species and that species trumps the human species, you start to get into dangerous territory. How far are you guys willing to push the envelope?? We got dangerously low last year, but we lucked out and got a nice wet winter. That won't always be the case. And when S50 adds all those additional homes and businesses, will you guys alter your lake releases and environmental goals to reflect that, or will it be business as usual??

 

I hope that the releases will be cut back VERY soon, as you say, but we'll see. The perception is that Folsom Lake is doing more than it's fair share. Still over 2 months of good boating left and it will be down to 5 mph in 10 days or so?? That's ridiculous.

 

People are mad, and it's totally understandable.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users