Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (lifetimewarranty)      Join Date: Oct 2008       07-06-2016, 3:15 PM Reply   
So - did you buy the annual "Poppy Pass" this year assuming a normal season which means wakeboarding through september on Folsom lake??

I did...and with the looming threat of the lake closing by mid August I'm feeling a bit robbed.


So my question is what do we do? Take it and smile? Or get a bunch of locals that support this lake and march on the nearest Ranger Station?

I'd rather not get into the fact that I see highway signs telling me about conserving water in our horrific drought and all the while they are emptying what could have been a completely full (and quite large) lake.

This is probably my last Poppy pass. The last one I purchased right after the park rangers claimed they had no money and nearly doubled the price of the pass only to have it exposed that they were hiding the fact that they actually had hidden assets of over 50 million dollars
http://www.sacbee.com/news/investiga...le2575188.html


I'm sure anyone not from this area can easily say "suck it up/ deal with it"...but if you are from this area I'm interested in how you look at this. I realize the pass is for multiple california parks but living in Folsom guess which one I specifically want to go to? One of the reasons I moved here was the lake - but I had no idea how horribly it is managed.

FWIW - it's not the money, but more the piss poor management. If I was asking to purchase the pass and they said "We have an August 15 mandatory 5mph date this year" and then I could either choose to get it or not...that would be an entirely different story.
Old     (CHUCK_K)      Join Date: Aug 2015       07-06-2016, 9:04 PM Reply   
I have heard talks of Lake Oroville being in the same boat. By the end of August, Lime Saddle will be unusable. Not good!
Old     (Michael)      Join Date: Mar 2010       07-06-2016, 9:36 PM Reply   
What is going on with our lakes?
Old     (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       07-06-2016, 10:20 PM Reply   
I hadn't been to Folsom in at least 5 years until this last spring. It was pretty full then. Have you watched the levels? More importantly, have you watched the rate of decline in the levels? That rate of decline is the only thing worth paying any attention to if you want to forecast if/when it gets shut down. Isn't it like 400' elevation that turns it into 5 mph? Sometimes, I think they blow smoke for no reason.
Old     (lifetimewarranty)      Join Date: Oct 2008       07-07-2016, 7:05 AM Reply   
Mark,

They are having an August 5th pull date for marina boats which is around 12 or 20 (not sure why I can't remember) feet above the 5 mile per hour mark. So, given they are dropping 2-3 feet per day led me to add the 10 days to the August 5th date.

Actually, some friends who are probably paying more attention to the buzz were the ones to start talking that date but it is probably pretty accurate unless they get near that level and hold it (which is probably OK, but Folsom gets pretty dicey when low due to rock formations on the floor of the lake getting exposed.

I hadn't heard the same about Oroville. That is crazy if that humongous lake is in the same situation. I thought Folsom was the only one that got repeatedly drained every year.

Folsom is 30 feet down from crest today (7/7) at 436 feet. I wouldn't be surprised if they actually move the August 5th date closer. They've done that many times before. I had actually thought of venturing up to Oroville to check it out. Haven't been to that one yet.
Old     (lifetimewarranty)      Join Date: Oct 2008       07-07-2016, 7:08 AM Reply   
Michael,

Anyone feel free to correct me but from what I understand it is a fish deal. Pretty much they release all the water to facilitate the fish downstream. I'd personally be ok with them releasing the same amount of water out that comes in during the season (as that would be all the fish would get without a damn)...but it seems they would rather change the ecosystem further by releasing far more than what is coming in and therefore emptying our resources.

Perhaps I'm off base but that is how it seems to me.
Old     (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       07-07-2016, 11:44 PM Reply   
Folsom is a relatively shallow lake. It really doesn't hold that much water. I really don't get why they would kill it so fast and let so much water out though. Is it for future flood protection? I'd doubt it. I boat in the river/delta so none of this affects me much, but it still has some small effect since those displaced Folsom boaters will end up encroaching on my regular "turf." Oh well. Still not that big of a deal. California needs another dam/reservoir for so many reasons. The environmentalists killed the idea of the Auburn dam 30+ years ago. Too bad.

What was really frustrating for me last year was when I was doing a job in SoCal, I watched a guy for six months water his lawn twice a day. His gutters were never dry due to the huge daily amounts of runoff. Meanwhile, the NorCal town I'm from had water restrictions which meant the whole town's lawns had to die. Some of the people painted what was left of their lawns green to prevent neighborhood blight. Sad.
Old     (lifetimewarranty)      Join Date: Oct 2008       07-08-2016, 7:19 AM Reply   
Folsom is actually the 9th largest lake capacity-wise in California...so despite a shallow type shoreline, it is quite big. It's also a lake that is almost guaranteed to fill every year (if it were up to nature) due to the American River and Lake tahoe snow melt feeding it.

As far as flood protection, I believe there were rules set up because of one single year since the dam was built that they were afraid of the dam being breached due to the design (poor design) of the gate system.

They actually have been doing a 7 or 800 million dollar retrofit to the dikes and gates and adding a spillway so this won't be an issue. Currently they have rules that state it can only be so full at a given time of year even if it makes no sense (like in a drought year or years). My hope is that with these new gates and higher dikes in place they can allow the lake to fill and going forward we can at least have relatively normal summer recreation as well as maintain our water storage at a higher level.

So reading a bit more on this it seems maybe they need to dump a lot of fresh water into the delta so the salt stays below where they draw water for the aqueduct or other southern areas...?

That doesn't seem like a brilliant design.


Funny about the Auburn dam. We would be so much better off in terms of water supply today if they had gone ahead with it. Good thing this area hasn't grown any in 30 years and had water demand grow in that time either right...?
Old     (markj)      Join Date: Apr 2005       07-09-2016, 9:51 AM Reply   
Well you certainly know a lot more about it than I do. 9th largest? I wouldn't have ever guessed that.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            07-09-2016, 2:53 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by markj View Post

What was really frustrating for me last year was when I was doing a job in SoCal, I watched a guy for six months water his lawn twice a day. His gutters were never dry due to the huge daily amounts of runoff. Meanwhile, the NorCal town I'm from had water restrictions which meant the whole town's lawns had to die. Some of the people painted what was left of their lawns green to prevent neighborhood blight. Sad.
While this guy is ignorant to the issue and being in Southern California makes it even worse, it's greedy agriculture. There is nothing else to point fingers at. I don't care how much the guy next to me waters his lawn, at the end of the day it's greedy farmers. Brutal seeing all the lakes get drained so quick.
Old     (Michael)      Join Date: Mar 2010       07-11-2016, 1:16 PM Reply   
I asked the ranger on friday night, and they said they know the news is saying that, but they dont know anything about that date?
Old     (lifetimewarranty)      Join Date: Oct 2008       07-11-2016, 2:09 PM Reply   
Well, there is the possibility that they will leave it at a "low" state somewhere between the level that the marina boats have to pull out and the 5mph mandate. It certainly isn't ideal but its better than nothing.

If I tell myself that is what they are going to do I feel a little better


My guess is the Rangers don't have a clue. I believe both the state and federal government control the dam so I doubt they care enough to tell anyone what their schedule is. I actually doubt they know
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       07-11-2016, 3:14 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifetimewarranty View Post
Folsom is actually the 9th largest lake capacity-wise in California...so despite a shallow type shoreline, it is quite big. It's also a lake that is almost guaranteed to fill every year (if it were up to nature) due to the American River and Lake tahoe snow melt feeding it.
You will be very disappointed to learn that all of the water in lake Tahoe drains into Nevada.
Old     (lifetimewarranty)      Join Date: Oct 2008       07-11-2016, 3:41 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
You will be very disappointed to learn that all of the water in lake Tahoe drains into Nevada.
It would take quite a bit more than that to disappoint me regarding what exactly "fills" folsom...however, I only said the snow runoff from lake tahoe (and I guess I should have said lake tahoe area)...
Old     (wakejunky)      Join Date: Apr 2002       07-22-2016, 7:25 PM Reply   
I predict they will bring the lake to 5mph by then end of next week. 7/29. Currently 424ft on 7/21 and looking at the outflow, the lake level is dropping 6 feet a week which will put the lake at 418ft within the week.
Old     (Michael)      Join Date: Mar 2010       07-25-2016, 11:52 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakejunky View Post
I predict they will bring the lake to 5mph by then end of next week. 7/29. Currently 424ft on 7/21 and looking at the outflow, the lake level is dropping 6 feet a week which will put the lake at 418ft within the week.
I sure hope not, I did notice that it is going down extremely fast.
Old     (wakejunky)      Join Date: Apr 2002       07-26-2016, 8:58 AM Reply   
From a July 2nd post on Folsom Lake FB page. Looks like they already started dumping it.

Lake drainage started yesterday and by Aug 5th boaters are being asked to pull their boats out. Lake level will be at 412 ft. They are increasing outflows from the lake today and Folsom will be dropping about a foot a day for the next couple of months. They talk about needing to provide water to drink, but that is nothing new. Someone is really concerned that the fish heading up the river in the fall have cooler water and so they are holding water in Lake Shasta. However, they are not cutting deliveries to anyone, just taking the water from Folsom that would normally come from the other lakes. Shasta holds over 4.5 million acre feet of water and Folsom holds less than 1 million. The real troubling thought is that it sounds like this is the way Folsom Lake will be managed for years to come. The Bureau of Reclamation’s number is 916-978-5100. KCRA has been contacted, but their number is 444-7316. Assemblywoman Beth Gaines and State Senator Ted Gaines has also been informed. The more people who call the more likely we are to be heard.
Old     (bass10after)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-26-2016, 2:08 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
While this guy is ignorant to the issue and being in Southern California makes it even worse, it's greedy agriculture. There is nothing else to point fingers at. I don't care how much the guy next to me waters his lawn, at the end of the day it's greedy farmers. Brutal seeing all the lakes get drained so quick.
you don't know your head from your a$$ if you think that is the case. I am a farmer and our surface water supply has been drastically cut several years and in some cases completely cut off. Water regulations have come down on farmers while non native fish and theories to protect them have taken precedent over humanity. The dams in california were built to create agriculture and jobs- which, in turn helped shape this state into what it is today. These same damns that were designated for agriculture are now being asked to supply water to non native fish, environmental theories that have yet to be proven effective and supply water to other regions of the state without water restrictions and enough water storage to sustain their own populations. Even after a 5 year severe drought these dams are releasing more water that goes into the ocean than farmers would use in two years. Waste is rampant across the board but certainly not by farmers. We run businesses and water is an expense that we pay for as well, same with pesticides, etc. Farmers are some of the most frugal people you will ever meet and believe me if its not needed, its not used. If you want to talk about greed take a look into condoleza rice and colon powel's farming operation. thousands upon thousands of acres pumping water around the clock from wells and depleting ground water, not surface water from lakes. Silicon Valley and Los Angeles are home to the highest earners in the state and how much of that money is designated to water storage for the high populations that money creates? None.
Read up on folsom before you point a finger-
http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/02/...d-change-that/
Heres an article on shasta
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...eleases-water/

Last edited by bass10after; 07-26-2016 at 2:14 PM.
Old     (bass10after)      Join Date: Feb 2010       07-27-2016, 6:34 AM Reply   
another example. http://www.wired.com/2015/04/califor...ns-water-fish/. You read that right, 4.8 billion gallons of water were released last year out to sea in the middle of a 5 year drought to save 29 fish. When that was deemed not enough by the environmental gods they requested another 3.9 billion gallons of water. I encourage everyone to look further into this themselves, but the water supply is dwindling and contrary to negative marketing the majority of that water isn't being used to grow food.
Old     (CALIV210)      Join Date: Jun 2015       07-27-2016, 1:42 PM Reply   
All these water issues and Gov Moon Beam is pushing this stupid high speed rail crap . The writings on the wall stop the rail and build dams .
Old    TheWakeIsReal            07-27-2016, 6:33 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass10after View Post
you don't know your head from your a$$ if you think that is the case. I am a farmer and our surface water supply has been drastically cut several years and in some cases completely cut off. Water regulations have come down on farmers while non native fish and theories to protect them have taken precedent over humanity. The dams in california were built to create agriculture and jobs- which, in turn helped shape this state into what it is today. These same damns that were designated for agriculture are now being asked to supply water to non native fish, environmental theories that have yet to be proven effective and supply water to other regions of the state without water restrictions and enough water storage to sustain their own populations. Even after a 5 year severe drought these dams are releasing more water that goes into the ocean than farmers would use in two years. Waste is rampant across the board but certainly not by farmers. We run businesses and water is an expense that we pay for as well, same with pesticides, etc. Farmers are some of the most frugal people you will ever meet and believe me if its not needed, its not used. If you want to talk about greed take a look into condoleza rice and colon powel's farming operation. thousands upon thousands of acres pumping water around the clock from wells and depleting ground water, not surface water from lakes. Silicon Valley and Los Angeles are home to the highest earners in the state and how much of that money is designated to water storage for the high populations that money creates? None.
Read up on folsom before you point a finger-
http://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/02/...d-change-that/
Heres an article on shasta
http://www.breitbart.com/california/...eleases-water/
"Waste" is in who you're talking to. If you want to argue about the ethics of growing crops that are extremely thirsty and then using them for export that's a topic for another day.

Where do you want more water storage? The cost to put in new dams compared to the amount of water we would save is absolutely laughable. The dams are already occupying the good spots to save water.

You gave two articles. Each relating back to a safety regulation. Google "water and agriculture in California" and you will find many, many more that will side with me that agriculture in California has become greedy.
Old     (bass10after)      Join Date: Feb 2010       08-01-2016, 10:05 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
"Waste" is in who you're talking to. If you want to argue about the ethics of growing crops that are extremely thirsty and then using them for export that's a topic for another day.

Where do you want more water storage? The cost to put in new dams compared to the amount of water we would save is absolutely laughable. The dams are already occupying the good spots to save water.

You gave two articles. Each relating back to a safety regulation. Google "water and agriculture in California" and you will find many, many more that will side with me that agriculture in California has become greedy.
You can read biased articles all you want from both sides, no doubt there are plenty that would support your take, and plenty that would support mine. Wasting 4 billion gallons of water for 29 fish is in fact a gross waste of water and the same amount of water supports billion dollar industry that provide jobs and an insane amount of tax revenue for the state. Nobody is complaining about Apple exporting all their product across the world and yet the same water you're complaining about supports them and the entire silicon valley as well as Los Angeles. The central valley grows 100% of almonds consumed in the entire united states and 75% of the world's market and 100% of that tax money generated goes to the state of California. Does Apples? nope. I'd urge you to not buy into hypocrisy and look towards the benefits of having that type of industry and job creation in your state. Its not just the guys growing trees. Its the equipment sales, the insurance policies, the processing plants, the vehicles they purchase, the marketing, packaging plants, the re sellers who use the products like frito lay, blue diamond, hershey, etc. When housing and stock market went into the gutter it was farming that stayed consistent and that helped pull the state and a lot of people who lost jobs through the tough times. I hired guys that used to be framers, window installers concrete finishers etc. and they were flat broke and experiencing really tough times. As far as the cost of water storage it is absolutely vital to preservation of human life, The population of california has doubled since these dams were built. Along with the actual water demand comes food demands as well. I get that some food gets exported-thats a right any business has. Such as the business of exporting drought stricken norcal water to other parts of the state. We obviously don't have enough water storage or there wouldn't be a fight. By the way take a look at casaic lake and some others down in LA. they are full while ours continue to empty, because they still pump water from northern ca to socal regardless of the drought. If the state wants to put 400 billion into a train for convenience how much is water storage for necessity worth?

Last edited by bass10after; 08-01-2016 at 10:12 AM.
Old    TheWakeIsReal            08-01-2016, 10:22 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass10after View Post
You can read biased articles all you want from both sides, no doubt there are plenty that would support your take, and plenty that would support mine. Wasting 4 billion gallons of water for 29 fish is in fact a gross waste of water and the same amount of water supports billion dollar industry that provide jobs and an insane amount of tax revenue for the state. Nobody is complaining about Apple exporting all their product across the world and yet the same water you're complaining about supports them and the entire silicon valley as well as Los Angeles. The central valley grows 100% of almonds consumed in the entire united states and 75% of the world's market and 100% of that tax money generated goes to the state of California. Does Apples? nope. I'd urge you to not buy into hypocrisy and look towards the benefits of having that type of industry and job creation in your state. Its not just the guys growing trees. Its the equipment sales, the insurance policies, the processing plants, the vehicles they purchase, the marketing, packaging plants, the re sellers who use the products like frito lay, blue diamond, hershey, etc. When housing and stock market went into the gutter it was farming that stayed consistent and that helped pull the state and a lot of people who lost jobs through the tough times. I hired guys that used to be framers, window installers concrete finishers etc. and they were flat broke and experiencing really tough times. As far as the cost of water storage it is absolutely vital to preservation of human life, The population of california has doubled since these dams were built. Along with the actual water demand comes food demands as well. I get that some food gets exported-thats a right any business has. Such as the business of exporting drought stricken norcal water to other parts of the state. We obviously don't have enough water storage or there wouldn't be a fight. By the way take a look at casaic lake and some others down in LA. they are full while ours continue to empty, because they still pump water from northern ca to socal regardless of the drought. If the state wants to put 400 billion into a train for convenience how much is water storage for necessity worth?
Again, go look at the cost versus the amount of water saved.

"If the five most often talked-about projects were built, the cost would be $9 billion and the average annual water yield would be only 400,000 acre feet -- 1 percent of California's total annual use "

That is the most ridiculous waste of money I have ever heard.

You stated, 100% of almonds, we don't NEED almonds. They are a massive waste of water. Going back to my point of greed.

People are FURIOUS about Apple's tax evasion, that doesn't change the topic of how much water goes to agriculture. I 100% get all of your points, I do. But there simply isn't enough water with the growing population to be growing 100% of our countries almonds in a drought stricken state. I don't care what you say, that just isn't right. You stated it yourself, the population has doubled, it is time to spread out the agriculture to other parts of the country. You know? Maybe the one's that aren't drought stricken? But that would affect the farmers here and their wallets, which comes full circle to what I was explaining.

Where in the world did you get a $400 billion dollar train system from? That isn't even close to the high-end projected cost of the train. It isn't just convenience, maybe someday we can stop relying on petroleum so much.
Old     (shawndoggy)      Join Date: Nov 2009       08-01-2016, 10:43 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass10after View Post
You can read biased articles all you want from both sides, no doubt there are plenty that would support your take, and plenty that would support mine. Wasting 4 billion gallons of water for 29 fish is in fact a gross waste of water and the same amount of water supports billion dollar industry that provide jobs and an insane amount of tax revenue for the state.
4B gallons sounds like a lot but it's really only 12,000 acre feet, right? Which is less than Shasta released yesterday (7/31/16 was 13,937 AF)?

I mean I get what you are saying, but it helps to put the amount of water into perspective.
Old     (bass10after)      Join Date: Feb 2010       08-01-2016, 6:26 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal View Post
Again, go look at the cost versus the amount of water saved.

"If the five most often talked-about projects were built, the cost would be $9 billion and the average annual water yield would be only 400,000 acre feet -- 1 percent of California's total annual use "

That is the most ridiculous waste of money I have ever heard.

You stated, 100% of almonds, we don't NEED almonds. They are a massive waste of water. Going back to my point of greed.

People are FURIOUS about Apple's tax evasion, that doesn't change the topic of how much water goes to agriculture. I 100% get all of your points, I do. But there simply isn't enough water with the growing population to be growing 100% of our countries almonds in a drought stricken state. I don't care what you say, that just isn't right. You stated it yourself, the population has doubled, it is time to spread out the agriculture to other parts of the country. You know? Maybe the one's that aren't drought stricken? But that would affect the farmers here and their wallets, which comes full circle to what I was explaining.

Where in the world did you get a $400 billion dollar train system from? That isn't even close to the high-end projected cost of the train. It isn't just convenience, maybe someday we can stop relying on petroleum so much.
So do you only eat what you NEED and grow all your own food locally in your back yard in order to better serve water needs of fellow californians? What you don't understand about crops in general is that they don't grow naturally everywhere and that certain climates and soils are better suited to certain crops. Products are grown and shipped from all across the country that use their own sources of water to produce. Thats inherent of agriculture. florida oranges, kansas wheat etc. The country has to sustain its own food demands or else we will be importing it from the rest of the world which we already do in large volumes as well. It is not a reality for every region to source 100% their needs locally. My point is there is plenty of water for farmers in our region if that water stayed local as well. How is it that you think food sources should only be grown/sourced and supplied locally and yet water doesn't apply? If the same limits you would like to apply to agriculture applied to Los Angeles the demand on our local reservoirs would decline dramatically and we wouldn't even be having this discussion as they would be overflowing. Agriculture accounts for somewhere between 20-30% of water use from damns the rest would be human consumption, power production and pumped elsewhere. The gross waste is coming in places you probably haven't heard of. In california there are 29 water agencies having to sue the EPA because there are children who don't have access to water in their schools and water restrictions have impacted entire towns that literally have zero water. That water has been allocated to trying to save a fish that wasn't native to the area to begin with. Meanwhile, water is being pumped right past those towns on its way to Socal.
As far as petroleum dependency goes i would like to see a decline in that as well but a train that goes to two destinations will do very little to reduce oil dependency.
Old     (bass10after)      Join Date: Feb 2010       08-01-2016, 6:38 PM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by shawndoggy View Post
4B gallons sounds like a lot but it's really only 12,000 acre feet, right? Which is less than Shasta released yesterday (7/31/16 was 13,937 AF)?

I mean I get what you are saying, but it helps to put the amount of water into perspective.
To put that in perspective a household uses a half to 1 acre foot of water a year and my farm operation uses less than 3 for 100 acres in a year. Thats a lot of water going to nothing.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:51 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2016 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us