AENN

In August of 2014 at the California State Republican Convention I stood against the Sites Reservoir Prop. 1 on the November 2014 ballot because I like so many saw this as a money and water grab by Governor Brown who was planning on using the Sites Reservoir as his person water source for fracking oil on his family ranch. Brown’s family ranch sits atop the northern tip of the vast Monterey oil shale deposits that extend into Northern California and is just a few short miles from the southern tip of the proposed Sites reservoir. The Sites reservoir would provide gravity fed water right into the ranch area.

Brown had been busted by one of his office staff for ordering geological studies of the available oil shale under his ranch by using California state resources for the study. As reported by KCRA 3 from Sacramento and the Associated Press: Oil regulator lodged complaint over work for Brown.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) —

“A worker in the state oil and gas regulatory agency lodged a whistleblower’s complaint over being ordered to prepare a state map of the oil and gas potential, history and geology of California Gov. Jerry Brown’s family ranch, the worker and her attorney said Monday”.

“I was asked to help her in part because she does feel that she’s being retaliated against because she’s a whistleblower,” Rehwald said.

State records obtained by The Associated Press show Brown in June 2014 directed senior officials at the Department of Conservation’s oil and gas regulatory agency to map, research and assess the oil, gas and mineral history and potential of his 2,700-acre family ranch in Northern California near Williams”.

That also was the same time Agenda 21 Radio reported Brown drilling 8 additional water wells on his ranch for use by oil frackers when the time came to extract the oil from the shale. Needless to say the exposure of the sitting governor to such sunlight put a chill on the sites reservoir being built. But what about the money that had been raised for the 2014 Prop 1?

“The measure enacted the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014. Proposition 1 was designed to:

Authorize $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds for state water supply infrastructure projects, such as public water system improvements, surface and groundwater storage, drinking water protection, water recycling and advanced water treatment technology, water supply management and conveyance, wastewater treatment, drought relief, emergency water supplies, and ecosystem and watershed protection and restoration.
The measure authorized $7.12 billion in general obligation bonds which from the state of California states:
“Definition: General Obligation (GO) bonds are a form of long-term borrowing in which the state issues municipal securities and pledges its full faith and credit to their repayment. Bonds are repaid over many years through semi-annual debt service payments”.

Now here is the big question. Where is that money today, the $7.12 billion? No one seems to know and many have asked over the years. What has happened is its gone and now we have “Environmental” groups as cover claiming the usual climate change pap that the Sites Reservoir will produce 362,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases annually. If you’re Jerry Brown along with his water cronies in North State 9 years after the passage of Prop 1 now is the perfect time to confuse the public with “your” facts and just drop the entire project while no one seems to want to discuss the $7.12 billion.

Paul Preston, Agenda 21 Radio.

From Cal Globe

One modern day mystery is how California is going to be able to supply its water needs going forward without more water storage. If the climate changes as predicted, more rain and less snow, California’s hydrology and its storage needs are going to change greatly.

No major water infrastructure has been built in the state since its population was 16-million. Now with more than 40-million people it has to be asked – can the state meet its water needs without improved infrastructure? California is one of the five Mediterranean Climates on Earth where diverse agriculture can thrive along with unparalleled beauty and a preferred biosphere for many creatures including humans.

Most of California’s stored water supply begins as snowpack in the mountains surrounding the Central Valley. As the snow in the Sierra Nevada and Cascades Ranges melt during the spring and summer the runoff is gathered in reservoirs to prevent flooding and provide supplies for urban, agricultural, recreational and environmental use during the dry seasons. This system makes life in California as we know it possible, providing the supplies needed to support families, business and habitat.

If future snowpack becomes diminished, more of the needed precipitation will come as rain. Water in its liquid form flows downhill along the path of least resistance. That means much of the state’s traditional water supply will flow out to sea unless it’s captured and contained.

In 2014 voters passed Proposition One providing $2.7 billion for water storage. The Sites Project was awarded $875 million from Prop. One, although the state has only released $40 million so far. Nine years later the Sites Reservoir Project is still viable and moving forward. Located on the west side of the Sacramento Valley near Maxwell the proposed Sites Reservoir will provide 1.5 million acre feet of off stream storage.

Recently two non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Friends of The River and Tell The Dam Truth have begun an attempt to block the construction of Sites by claiming in a press release the new reservoir will create 362,000 metric tons of greenhouse gases annually. The press release goes on to helpfully multiply that number by 100 to point out that’s 362-million tons of greenhouse gases, mostly methane, over the next century. Calls to Friends of the River resulted in a continuous voice mail loop. If Tell The Dam Truth has a phone number on its website it is well hidden and email enquiries were not answered by press time.

The Sites Reservoir’s governance is different than most reservoirs usually managed by the state Department of Water Resources or the federal US Bureau of Reclamation or the US Army Corps of Engineers. Jerry Brown is the Executive Director of the Sites Project Authority – and no – he is no relation to the former governor. The Sites Project Authority is a joint powers authority of 29 local public and government entities: cities, counties special districts, etc. As mentioned above Sites is an off stream storage facility. This means it doesn’t dam up a river for its water supply. The Sites Reservoir will rely on 180 miles of existing conveyance infrastructure to move water to and from the Sacramento River. Only 15-miles of new construction conveyance will be needed. This results in Sites realizing construction cost savings and a smaller environmental footprint.

Sites will only have access to Sacramento River water during high flow events. Brown said in a wet year like this half the reservoir could have been filled. This is excess water and doesn’t take away from any other uses whether environmental, municipal or agricultural water rights or regulatory demands.

To secure this excess water the Sites project will have to receive confirmation of a water right from the State Water Resources Control Board. And having this water right denied may be the end game of Friends of The River and Tell The Dam Truth.

Protests against approving the water right have to be submitted to the State Board by August 31^st. At that point Sites has up to six months to try to resolve the protests before the State Board holds a quasi-judicial type hearing to decide on approving the water rights. Brown hopes this can be completed by the end of 2024 so groundbreaking and construction can begin in 2025 with an eye towards a 2030 completion date.

“We’ve been working with Friends of The River for months now,” said Brown. “It’s hard to imagine at this point we’ll find a mutually satisfactory resolution.”

The entire project depends on securing the water rights from the State Board. “This is very important,” said Brown. “The project’s investments, getting key permits, all hinge on having water rights.”

Getting Sites’ water rights denied could be a difficult lift by the radical environmentalist groups. The methodology used by Sites to estimate greenhouse gases generated by reservoirs is the one accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and is considered the worldwide standard. This methodology shows Sites producing much less greenhouse gas emissions than the environmental groups claim – 68,000 to 84,000 metric tons.

Evidence gathered from press releases and website pages indicate Friends of The River is relying on the All-Res model of estimating greenhouse gases developed by Tell The Dam Truth.

Tell The Dam Truth’s website states, “All-Res is a modeling tool that calculates the total carbon footprint over the lifecycle of a dam and reservoir system. We have developed All-Res for the purpose of making it available to NGOs to use during dam permitting, re-liscensing [sic], and decommissioning processes, as well as educating the media, decision-makers, agencies, and the public.”

Tell The Dam Truth’s website also states, “Tell The Dam Truth (TTDT) receives funding and support from Patagonia.” Yes, a retail outdoor clothing company appears to be the developer of an all new methodology to estimate methane produced from decaying plants on the bottom of a reservoir with varying temperatures and water levels for the next 100-years. Enquiries to Patagonia’s Ventura, California headquarters were referred to a number with a voicemail that in turn referred the caller back to the company’s website for more information.

Still, blocking new water infrastructure by environmental groups is nothing new but the Sites project isn’t ignoring the NGOs right to express their opinions.

“Under certain conditions there can be greenhouse gases emitted,” said Brown. “We went above and beyond the normal evaluation. [Using accepted methodology] Sites is on track for zero emissions, we’re doing what we need to do. That’s what a 21^st century water storage system needs to look like.”