Dave, Alan Kathie in Thorpe, Named 'em--what do ya think?

greybeard

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
29,165
City & State/Province
Copperas Cove Tx
http://oregoncatalyst.com/2885-Columbia ... ornia.html


Speculation is high that Oregon has, for the first time, begun formal exploration into the feasibility of sending surplus water from the Columbia River south to thirsty California. The success of the recently announced giant wind farm has water export proponents salivating at the chance to tap just a small portion of the average 265,000 cubic feet of water per second that slips by Oregon, unused but for power generation, fish habitat and limited shipping.
Closed-door sessions have been held privately in recent months to discuss the very future of the Columbia River as we know it today. People have been asking for Oregon’s water for a long time. In 1990 Kenneth Hahn, an LA County Supervisor, formally requested water from Oregon via pipe to offset the severe water shortages they were experiencing. Then governor Neil Goldschmidt said no to the request, as did then Washington governor Booth Gardner.
Oh, how times have changed. With Oregon now leading the way in green power exports with the proposed Shepherds’ Flat Wind Farm, many around the state see the opportunity to export water as the next logical export. Raymond Branxton, a leading proponent of the plan to export water, said recently, “Why wouldn’t we do this? Our state is one of the worst in the entire nation in unemployment and in shortages of state revenue. This extra water, and there is extra, believe me, is like gold or oil. Billions of dollars are at stake. And every single hour we simply watch as over six billion gallons of water goes by, untapped, and empties into the vast Pacific Ocean. I say tap it and tap it now. I am talking with government officials on a regular basis.”
It is estimated that Oregon could supply California with approximately 8 billion gallons of water each day without any deleterious effect on either the environment or shipping. That amount of water could easily end, forever, the shortages that have plagued Southern California for decades. At the same time, jobs and revenue would flow into Oregon in numbers never seen before. It is estimated that at least 7,000 new temporary jobs would be created to construct the pipe and that 125 permanent jobs would be created in maintaining the pipe and pumps needed to supply the water. Revenue for this water, at current California rates, could easily top six million dollars per day or more. “That is over two billion dollars of revenue per year for Oregon for something that costs Oregon nothing,” noted Branxton.
“How anyone could oppose this in times like these is a mystery to me,” exclaimed Branxton at a recent secret meeting to discuss water export. “The pipe can go right next to the power lines and we can run the pumps with the wind power. It is simply amazing to me that we have not moved forward on this much sooner. Goldschmidt is long gone — maybe our next governor will have the foresight to put this much-needed plan into place,” Branxton predicted.

It's yall's river, your water--what do you think of selling it to Calif to keep their lawns and golf courses green and their agri-economy going?

It's been my experience, that once some other area gets contractual rights to water, it is very difficult to EVER abdicate that agreement even if you need the water yourself.
If I lived there, I would demand my state legislature/gov think long and very hard about this, and even try to force a BINDING public referendum vote on it..
 
wow.. I laugh at the numbers... a WHOPPING 125 permanent jobs.. that's what. .0001% of the population? Even the 7000 necessary to build it is really nothing, and the big bucks are going to the engineering and construction companies, after that, Oregon will just have less water.

I agree with GB... it should be put to a binding referendum, and the public ought to think about it long and hard.. Of course there will be tons of TV ad campaigns glorifying it, how it will be the cure-all to everything, kinda like what the Northern Gateway and Keystone pipeline proponents do, and the opposition will go unheard, so the public will go vote based on the best campaign.

Yes, I'm a little jaded.
 
As for the binding referendum, make sure it can only be re visited every five years or so.If it is like most referendums that can be voted on every six months the proponents will.eventually wear the opposition down and the question will pass by 1 or2% with only 25% of the registered voters going to the polls. Thus 13% of the voters will decide the question simply because everyone else is worn out.
 
And make sure the usage contract has to be renewed ANNUALLY, not have a long term or "in perpetuity" thing. I'd dang sure make Calif pay thru the nose for every drop, otherwise, they'll continue as they have always done, constantly expanding and constantly hollerin' for more water till the Columbia R looks like the Rio Grande at it's mouth--not much more than a gully.

Truly tho, Calif needs to solve it's own problems without raping and pillaging it's neighbor's resources.
 
Well the article is nearly 5 years old and nothing has come of it that I know.
Who or what is the history of the Oregon Catalyst?
Doesn't appear to me that it's being run by Nostradamus, so guess I won't be losing much sleep over it.
Does the Oregon Catalyst do anything other than stir the pot?
 
IT costs a small fortune here in TX to irrigate out of the river when you have river front. Get to reading about California and the amount of water the farmers use. Who subsidizes that cost? Crops sure as hades couldn't pay for it. Gotta be subsidized.
 
I saw this and knew it was past news, too many problems ....,. #1 salmon lovers would have it tied up in court for centuries. Ask the Columbia river dams about that, they recently lost millions to save four salmon (fish) to be clear that's 4 fish, not species in Idaho.
 
backhoeboogie":2zpjyw5r said:
IT costs a small fortune here in TX to irrigate out of the river when you have river front. Get to reading about California and the amount of water the farmers use. Who subsidizes that cost? Crops sure as hades couldn't pay for it. Gotta be subsidized.
It's the crops. When most people in the US think crops they think corn/cotton/hay etc. Here where I'm at and for quite a bit of the state around me we plant permanent plantings of high value crops like walnuts, citrus, almonds, etc. It would literally take hundreds of acres(and more water) of cotton to match the revenue from a few acres of one of these permanent plantings.
 
Personally, I would fight this tooth and nail. The last thing CA needs is a bailout. What we need is for people to figure out that this is a desert and stop moving here. It is a very fertile desert and we do have enough water to farm it, but there is not enough water for billion home oasis's, golf courses, AND agriculture. If we recieved water from Oregon it would just spur development (which usually takes place on the best farm ground) and create a larger problem.
Everyone needs a place to live and everyone needs to eat. If they go live somewhere else and let us farm this ground we can feed them but if we can't farm this then foods going to get a little tight for everyone. :nod:
 
Water wars have been going on in the west for a long time. California tries to get it from the Pac NW, and they don't get far with it. Salmon and native tribes can trump California. Went through the Snake River Adjudication in Idaho years ago, to "secure" rights to our well water. There's some ruckus going on right now about Yakima River/Yakima River drainage water. There's always a ruckus out here.
 
Alan":2l0r6kqx said:
I saw this and knew it was past news, too many problems ....,. #1 salmon lovers would have it tied up in court for centuries. Ask the Columbia river dams about that, they recently lost millions to save four salmon (fish) to be clear that's 4 fish, not species in Idaho.

I'm all for saving salmon, but if that's true, that's just freaking insane!.. Meanwhile over the weekend a HUGE mine had the dam of it's tailings pond break open overnight, and about a square mile of a tailings pond drained into Lake Quesnel, which drains into the Fraser River.. It's been making headline news if you want to look it up.. it's the Polley Mine. Things like that really rile me... prohibit a guy from putting a shovel full of gravel into the river, but something like this will go largely unpunished
 
Kathie in Thorp":23b4vq4m said:
Water wars have been going on in the west for a long time. California tries to get it from the Pac NW, and they don't get far with it. Salmon and native tribes can trump California. Went through the Snake River Adjudication in Idaho years ago, to "secure" rights to our well water. There's some ruckus going on right now about Yakima River/Yakima River drainage water. There's always a ruckus out here.

I do like the word "ruckus" It has such a vivid connotation. I don't really like salmon so no bothers there but I would be inclined to participate in a ruckus!
 
cow pollinater":11jrfhok said:
backhoeboogie":11jrfhok said:
IT costs a small fortune here in TX to irrigate out of the river when you have river front. Get to reading about California and the amount of water the farmers use. Who subsidizes that cost? Crops sure as hades couldn't pay for it. Gotta be subsidized.
It's the crops. When most people in the US think crops they think corn/cotton/hay etc. Here where I'm at and for quite a bit of the state around me we plant permanent plantings of high value crops like walnuts, citrus, almonds, etc. It would literally take hundreds of acres(and more water) of cotton to match the revenue from a few acres of one of these permanent plantings.

I read somewhere X number of gallons, PER ALMOND. I have bought almonds and know their cost. If the farmers were buying their water from the Brazos River Authority here in Texas, they would be completely broke and so far in debt we'd have to pump them daylight.

THey are not paying the same amount per gallon that we pay in Texas. No way in hades. Who pays for it? Citrus, walnuts, and almonds are cheap.

I have never grown cotton. Never been around it.

We do have surplus pecan trees and I have harvested and sold pecans. They are very high. But we don't irrigate them.
 
Bhb, your pecan prices are outdated. I got my final payment on the 2013 crop yesterday and my almonds matched them this year for the first time. I expect to make more on the almonds next year regardless of price just because they handle the drought so much better and pecans are really picky about how they are managed the previous year so drought will factor in next year. Citrus and walnuts are my big money crops this year. Citrus can handle some drought and heat and it will still flavor up but the size is smaller. Since nobody is going to have much size to their fruit this year that won't hurt me. The walnuts have really enjoyed the early bud and the long spring and will come off way early and it's a BIIIG crop and a strong market(will beat last years pecan price). I was able to purchase more ditch stock earlier this year at $3,500 per share and while that was a new high I consider it to be a good investment.
So far, no subsidies... Maybe I'm doing it wrong. :mrgreen:
 
melking":15f988cd said:
Kathie in Thorp":15f988cd said:
Water wars have been going on in the west for a long time. California tries to get it from the Pac NW, and they don't get far with it. Salmon and native tribes can trump California. Went through the Snake River Adjudication in Idaho years ago, to "secure" rights to our well water. There's some ruckus going on right now about Yakima River/Yakima River drainage water. There's always a ruckus out here.

I do like the word "ruckus" It has such a vivid connotation. I don't really like salmon so no bothers there but I would be inclined to participate in a ruckus!
Melking, should we have a ruckus here that is planned in advance, will send you an invite.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top