[env-trinity] Shasta and trinity lakes

[Spreck Rosekrans]

Definitely an interesting idea but I wonder what one would do with the
dirt and how much it would cost. Dir is at least 75 lbs per cubic foot,
or more that 1600 tons per acre-foot - the unit of measure for reservoir
capacity. A truck can carry at most 50 tons, so it would take at least
32  truckloads to move the  dirt for each acre-foot of increased
storage. If each truckload cost $300, that component of the capital cost
of new storage would be about $10,000 per acre-foot, well above what
anyone has ever been willing to pay. Perhaps if there were a slurry line
to haul away the dirt and a location not to distant, it would work, but
I am skeptical.
 
 
 

Spreck Rosekrans 
Environmental Defense Fund 
415-293-6082 
http://www.edf.org <http://www.edf.org/>  
http://blogs.edf.org/waterfront/ 

 

________________________________

From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
[mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of
Brian Hill
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 5:53 PM
To: LRLake at aol.com; env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org
Subject: Re: [env-trinity] Shasta and trinity lakes



The silt removed may be able to be used as agricultural/potting soil
even if organic material, e.g., mulched brush from forest restoration,
were added to the silt.  Drag-lining or cutter head dredging silt may be
practical silt removal techniques.

 

Brian Hill

 

From: env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us
[mailto:env-trinity-bounces at velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us] On Behalf Of
LRLake at aol.com
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2008 2:36 PM
To: env-trinity at mailman.dcn.org
Subject: [env-trinity] Shasta and trinity lakes

 

All,

 

Several weeks ago there was a letter to the editor piece in the Redding
Record Searchlight suggesting an "out of the box" solution to increased
CVP storage.

 

Basically, the idea was to excavate Shasta and Trinity reservoirs during
times of "low water" as apposed to increasing dam height, etc.

 

This seems like a good idea to me to increase storage.  Is there any
reason why this wouldn't work? My simple appraisal sees increased
storage, minimal environmental impact and no change to the existing
footprint of the reservoirs.  A quick look at a topo map shows a 30-50%
increase in storage just by removing the earth behind the dams.

 

Makes sense to me...

 

Lawrence Lake, RPF 
Redding, CA 

 

 





________________________________

AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday
needs. Search Now
<http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir
=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from-aol-search/?nc
id=emlcntussear00000001%0d%0a> .



___________________________________________________
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and
privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this
e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this
information by a person other than the intended recipient is
unauthorized and may be illegal.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www2.dcn.org/pipermail/env-trinity/attachments/20081111/66577cf5/attachment.html>