Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2012, 01:44 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,625 posts, read 67,123,456 times
Reputation: 21154

Advertisements



Enlarging Shasta Lake feasible, U.S. report says
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2012, 06:32 PM
 
Location: RSM
5,113 posts, read 19,681,943 times
Reputation: 1927
It would also cost $1.07 billion to increase the height of the dam 18.5 feet, a price that many politicians, fisheries experts and environmentalists are likely to question.

Gee, $1b for drinking water or $75b for a train where an airplane already goes faster? I think I'll go with the drinking water
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 06:48 PM
 
12,823 posts, read 24,274,772 times
Reputation: 11039
This barely scratches the surface of what is really needed to update the water infrastructure.

However, ever since the extreme wing of the Greens discovered that water could be used to slow growth ... well, the rest, as they say, is history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 06:49 PM
 
Location: LBC
4,156 posts, read 5,524,718 times
Reputation: 3593
Quote:
Originally Posted by bhcompy View Post
It would also cost $1.07 billion to increase the height of the dam 18.5 feet, a price that many politicians, fisheries experts and environmentalists are likely to question.

Gee, $1b for drinking water or $75b for a train where an airplane already goes faster? I think I'll go with the drinking water
False dichotomy. Prop IA funds are dedicated specifically to high speed rail only. Those funds cannot go anywhere else.

As to the merits of HSR: factoring in security time, location of the airports, air-travel is not necessarily faster than high speed rail, particularly if the destination is mid-way, eg. Fresno. Also, the expense of not building HSR is not zero. Highway and airport capacity will need to be increased at a greater rate in its absence.

If this water project is such an important a priority, why don’t we question the wisdom of continuing to pour billions of dollars of tax payer money into subsidizing highways and airports?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 09:19 PM
 
Location: RSM
5,113 posts, read 19,681,943 times
Reputation: 1927
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander View Post
False dichotomy. Prop IA funds are dedicated specifically to high speed rail only. Those funds cannot go anywhere else.

As to the merits of HSR: factoring in security time, location of the airports, air-travel is not necessarily faster than high speed rail, particularly if the destination is mid-way, eg. Fresno. Also, the expense of not building HSR is not zero. Highway and airport capacity will need to be increased at a greater rate in its absence.

If this water project is such an important a priority, why don’t we question the wisdom of continuing to pour billions of dollars of tax payer money into subsidizing highways and airports?
Prop 1a is only $10b of the funds(+$10b in debt).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 10:12 PM
 
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,624,497 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
This barely scratches the surface of what is really needed to update the water infrastructure.

However, ever since the extreme wing of the Greens discovered that water could be used to slow growth ... well, the rest, as they say, is history.
Would you like to dam every stream, divert the water for more people in this state?

I would rather see all the water projects shut down.

That should clear the state fairly quickly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2012, 10:39 PM
 
Location: Sacramento
14,044 posts, read 27,101,372 times
Reputation: 7373
Quote:
Originally Posted by .highnlite View Post
Would you like to dam every stream, divert the water for more people in this state?

I would rather see all the water projects shut down.

That should clear the state fairly quickly.
I'm the other side of the coin, I favor the water projects.

I'd add water projects, especially desalination for farming water too.

Absolutely favor funding water projects, instead of the train.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2012, 01:04 PM
 
12,823 posts, read 24,274,772 times
Reputation: 11039
Quote:
Originally Posted by .highnlite View Post
Would you like to dam every stream, divert the water for more people in this state?
That is not necessary. A few key projects in terms of storage (like this one), and, a major re-engineering of distribution, are what's needed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2012, 05:17 PM
 
4,236 posts, read 8,078,191 times
Reputation: 10208
The raising of Shasta Dam is another boondoggle that will be tied up in committees and courts for years should they have a go at it.

What’s even crazier, start looking at the historical numbers for the dam’s crest and you’ll soon realize this is a huge waste of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2012, 06:17 PM
 
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,624,497 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
That is not necessary. A few key projects in terms of storage (like this one), and, a major re-engineering of distribution, are what's needed.
I vote for a major re engineering of distribution. The Owens Valley rancher way.

Removing all urban areas to east of the 100th meridian is the only long term solution to the arid West, there will never be enough water for everyone in the land of little rain..

Remember the proposal to pipe Columbia river water south to CA? That was a good one.

Our farm has paid an annual installment for California Aqueduct water since the early 1960's and we have never seen a drop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top