[Mick]

A brobdingnagian lithium reserve estimated at 3,400 kilotons has been discovered in one of California's most water-challenged (and impoverished) areas, the Salton Sea. It would require over 1 billion gallons of water annually to mine.

https://www.sfgate.com/california/articl...527598.php

[Mick]

A brobdingnagian lithium reserve estimated at 3,400 kilotons has been discovered in one of California's most water-challenged (and impoverished) areas, the Salton Sea. It would require over 1 billion gallons of water annually to mine.

https://www.sfgate.com/california/articl...527598.php

[Hurlburt88]

I am assuming seawater can be used in the lithium extraction process as opposed to fresh water?   curious if that is right or wrong.   Of course then might not be practical to pipe in seawater.

[Hurlburt88]

I am assuming seawater can be used in the lithium extraction process as opposed to fresh water?   curious if that is right or wrong.   Of course then might not be practical to pipe in seawater.

[Goose]

There are other ways to mine lithium that do not require water. The geothermal energy companies already have a process that uses lithium-rich brine, so for them, that is the "only way to go". 1500 ft deep "conventional" open pit mines are not difficult to operate. Mining the salts that are rich in lithium isn't the problem. Refining the lithium from the other components in the salts is. That process requires significant quantities of water, but not on the same order as mining by dissolving the salts in the ground does.

[Goose]

There are other ways to mine lithium that do not require water. The geothermal energy companies already have a process that uses lithium-rich brine, so for them, that is the "only way to go". 1500 ft deep "conventional" open pit mines are not difficult to operate. Mining the salts that are rich in lithium isn't the problem. Refining the lithium from the other components in the salts is. That process requires significant quantities of water, but not on the same order as mining by dissolving the salts in the ground does.

[Hurlburt88]

thanks . . . and I'll assume the brine process can be something like a closed-loop system, using something like RO to extract the salts.   I'll have to do some research when I have time!

[Hurlburt88]

thanks . . . and I'll assume the brine process can be something like a closed-loop system, using something like RO to extract the salts.   I'll have to do some research when I have time!

[cardcrimson]

A bit of thread drift, but lithium batteries hopefully will be a thing of the past, eventually being replaced by graphene aluminum ion batteries. Faster charging and discharging, better density, and don't catch fire.

https://e.paaet.edu.kw/institutes/AR/Hig...0batteries.

[cardcrimson]

A bit of thread drift, but lithium batteries hopefully will be a thing of the past, eventually being replaced by graphene aluminum ion batteries. Faster charging and discharging, better density, and don't catch fire.

https://e.paaet.edu.kw/institutes/AR/Hig...0batteries.

[Mick]

RESSW.pdf (ca.gov)

Reservoir capacity updated for December 7 (using threepointer's scale). Listed with % of Average to date:

Large (1 MM+ AF):
Oroville, 66% / 133%
Shasta, 68% / 126%
Pine Flat, 57% / 192%
San Luis, 57% / 110%
New Melones, 81% / 149%
Trinity, 49% / 86%
Don Pedro, 80% / 122%
New Exchequer/Lake McClure, 65% / 153%
Berryessa, 76% / 108%
Almanor, 73% / 121%

Medium (300k - 999k AF, where available)
Folsom, 50% / 125% 
New Bullards, 66% / 113%
Diamond Valley, 90% / 129%
Indian Valley, 49% / 126%
Millerton Lake/Friant, 34% / 75%
Isabella, 36% / 147%
Lake San Antonio, 100% / 119%
Lake Tahoe/Tahoe City, 68% / 228%
Nacimiento, 55% / 162%
Camanche, 77% / 132%
Warm Springs, 59% / 113%
New Hogan, 55% / 161%
Castaic, 76% / 114%
Clear Lake/Cache Creek, 27% / 128%

SF Bay Reservoirs (and of local interest, where available)
Hetch Hetchy, 85% / 124%
Calaveras, 86% / 211%
Del Valle, 36% / 105%
U San Leandro, 88% / 124%
San Pablo, 61% / 104%
Chabot, 86% / 108%
Briones, 84% / 108%
Lexington Reservoir, 50% / 109%
San Antonio Reservoir, 100% / 119%
Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir, 71% / 104%

Most large (1 MM AF) reservoirs are down 1-3% of capacity from five weeks ago. San Luis was down considerably. New Melones, Diamond Valley, Lake San Antonio are up a bit. The smaller reservoirs have reduced capacity as we move into the rain and snow season.

Pacific Northwest atmospheric river is moving into Northern California. Doesn't look like it will reach the SFBA, but will result in some snow in the northeast part of the state.

Atmospheric river spreads into California

[Mick]

RESSW.pdf (ca.gov)

Reservoir capacity updated for December 7 (using threepointer's scale). Listed with % of Average to date:

Large (1 MM+ AF):
Oroville, 66% / 133%
Shasta, 68% / 126%
Pine Flat, 57% / 192%
San Luis, 57% / 110%
New Melones, 81% / 149%
Trinity, 49% / 86%
Don Pedro, 80% / 122%
New Exchequer/Lake McClure, 65% / 153%
Berryessa, 76% / 108%
Almanor, 73% / 121%

Medium (300k - 999k AF, where available)
Folsom, 50% / 125% 
New Bullards, 66% / 113%
Diamond Valley, 90% / 129%
Indian Valley, 49% / 126%
Millerton Lake/Friant, 34% / 75%
Isabella, 36% / 147%
Lake San Antonio, 100% / 119%
Lake Tahoe/Tahoe City, 68% / 228%
Nacimiento, 55% / 162%
Camanche, 77% / 132%
Warm Springs, 59% / 113%
New Hogan, 55% / 161%
Castaic, 76% / 114%
Clear Lake/Cache Creek, 27% / 128%

SF Bay Reservoirs (and of local interest, where available)
Hetch Hetchy, 85% / 124%
Calaveras, 86% / 211%
Del Valle, 36% / 105%
U San Leandro, 88% / 124%
San Pablo, 61% / 104%
Chabot, 86% / 108%
Briones, 84% / 108%
Lexington Reservoir, 50% / 109%
San Antonio Reservoir, 100% / 119%
Lower Crystal Springs Reservoir, 71% / 104%

Most large (1 MM AF) reservoirs are down 1-3% of capacity from five weeks ago. San Luis was down considerably. New Melones, Diamond Valley, Lake San Antonio are up a bit. The smaller reservoirs have reduced capacity as we move into the rain and snow season.

Pacific Northwest atmospheric river is moving into Northern California. Doesn't look like it will reach the SFBA, but will result in some snow in the northeast part of the state.

Atmospheric river spreads into California

[82lsju]

A bit of thread drift, but lithium batteries hopefully will be a thing of the past, eventually being replaced by graphene aluminum ion batteries. Faster charging and discharging, better density, and don't catch fire.

https://e.paaet.edu.kw/institutes/AR/Hig...0batteries.

this should also be in the graphene thread!!!

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=7068

[82lsju]

A bit of thread drift, but lithium batteries hopefully will be a thing of the past, eventually being replaced by graphene aluminum ion batteries. Faster charging and discharging, better density, and don't catch fire.

https://e.paaet.edu.kw/institutes/AR/Hig...0batteries.

this should also be in the graphene thread!!!

https://thecardboard.org/board/showthread.php?tid=7068

[UltimateCard]

The Fate of the West’s Water Rests on the Shoulders of this 27-year-old (Stanford Alum)

[UltimateCard]

The Fate of the West’s Water Rests on the Shoulders of this 27-year-old (Stanford Alum)

[Mick]

Interesting interview with Jerry Brown...not the ex-governor, but the water engineer...has been selected to oversee the building of Sites Reservoir, the 8th largest dam in California, and the largest since 1979 (New Melones). Groundbreaking in 2026. It will provide water to 24 million people and 500,000 acres of Central Valley farmlands. $4.5 billion.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/17/w...ent=manual

https://www.owp.csus.edu/water-seminars/...roject.php

[Mick]

Interesting interview with Jerry Brown...not the ex-governor, but the water engineer...has been selected to oversee the building of Sites Reservoir, the 8th largest dam in California, and the largest since 1979 (New Melones). Groundbreaking in 2026. It will provide water to 24 million people and 500,000 acres of Central Valley farmlands. $4.5 billion.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/17/w...ent=manual

https://www.owp.csus.edu/water-seminars/...roject.php

[Mick]

Two storms on the way:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto...1552&ei=13

brobdingnagian waves hitting the California coastline for the next four days.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/ma...r-AA1m9FQh

Evacuation warning for Seacliff State Beach, one of my favorites:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto...dbb6&ei=33

[Mick]

Two storms on the way:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto...1552&ei=13

brobdingnagian waves hitting the California coastline for the next four days.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/ma...r-AA1m9FQh

Evacuation warning for Seacliff State Beach, one of my favorites:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topsto...dbb6&ei=33

[jacket3ree]

Santa Cruz is getting nailed.

https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/s...578344.php

Wishing the best under the circumstances for everyone over the hill.

That article about Hamby and Imperial Irrigation District is fascinating. I wish him well with a probably intractable problem. Too many people, not enough water, and we can't just kill agriculture in California.

I'm reminded of the firm in Colorado I worked for immediately prior to coming out here to Stanford. They ran the Colorado River Simulation System for Bur Rec, which had all the senior and junior rights for the six states. They basically had a war room with banks of mainframe computers and a cool wall showing everything going on. My impression when talking to the lead engineer on that project is the Compact was struck based on weather in the 1920s, which was unusually precipitation heavy.  So lots of rights that weren't supported by typical rainfall and snowmelt. California sponged off excess water from Arizona's allocation until Phoenix happened.

I am prompted to look into why Imperial Valley is the kingpin of kingpins other then all that flat land and sunshine. The Salton Sea is a happy (well that's debatable) accident as Bob Ross would say when the All American Canal  (?) broke and dumped billions of gallons of water into the Salton Sink over a year and a half in 1905. Apparently there is push back on that origin story with assertions that the sea would have formed naturally. That will play into this lithium mining deal, because if the lake was a mistake, why not desalinate the water to mine lithium since the sea is shrinking to nothing eventually?

Finally visited the area last year when our son was at Twenty Nine Palms on rotation.  Interesting mix of military, hippies, meth heads, and socialites from Palm Springs. Not too many socialites though when we visited Slab City. Our son was deployed to the border a couple of years ago for drug and human trafficking intervention and he thought we needed to see the area in the flesh.

[jacket3ree]

Santa Cruz is getting nailed.

https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/s...578344.php

Wishing the best under the circumstances for everyone over the hill.

That article about Hamby and Imperial Irrigation District is fascinating. I wish him well with a probably intractable problem. Too many people, not enough water, and we can't just kill agriculture in California.

I'm reminded of the firm in Colorado I worked for immediately prior to coming out here to Stanford. They ran the Colorado River Simulation System for Bur Rec, which had all the senior and junior rights for the six states. They basically had a war room with banks of mainframe computers and a cool wall showing everything going on. My impression when talking to the lead engineer on that project is the Compact was struck based on weather in the 1920s, which was unusually precipitation heavy.  So lots of rights that weren't supported by typical rainfall and snowmelt. California sponged off excess water from Arizona's allocation until Phoenix happened.

I am prompted to look into why Imperial Valley is the kingpin of kingpins other then all that flat land and sunshine. The Salton Sea is a happy (well that's debatable) accident as Bob Ross would say when the All American Canal  (?) broke and dumped billions of gallons of water into the Salton Sink over a year and a half in 1905. Apparently there is push back on that origin story with assertions that the sea would have formed naturally. That will play into this lithium mining deal, because if the lake was a mistake, why not desalinate the water to mine lithium since the sea is shrinking to nothing eventually?

Finally visited the area last year when our son was at Twenty Nine Palms on rotation.  Interesting mix of military, hippies, meth heads, and socialites from Palm Springs. Not too many socialites though when we visited Slab City. Our son was deployed to the border a couple of years ago for drug and human trafficking intervention and he thought we needed to see the area in the flesh.

[Mick]

Santa Cruz is getting nailed.

https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/s...578344.php

Marin County also getting crushed.

Evacuations ordered in Marin County as dangerous surf surges on coast

[Mick]

Santa Cruz is getting nailed.

https://www.sfgate.com/weather/article/s...578344.php

Marin County also getting crushed.

Evacuations ordered in Marin County as dangerous surf surges on coast

[Mick]

RESSW.pdf (ca.gov)

Reservoir capacity updated for January 3, 2024 (using threepointer's scale). Listed with % of Average to date:

Large (1 MM+ AF):
Oroville, 66% / 129%
Shasta, 67% / 120%
Pine Flat, 58% / 184%
San Luis, 56% / 100%
New Melones, 82% / 150%
Trinity, 50% / 85%
Don Pedro, 80% / 120%
New Exchequer/Lake McClure, 64% / 151%
Berryessa, 76% / 106%
Almanor, 72% / 118%

Medium (300k - 999k AF, where available)
Folsom, 47% / 117% 
New Bullards, 65% / 108%
Diamond Valley, 91% / 129%
Indian Valley, 49% / 120%
Millerton Lake/Friant, 39% / 81%
Isabella, 34% / 139%
Lake San Antonio, 65% / 142%
Lake Tahoe/Tahoe City, 67% / 221%
Nacimiento, 54% / 154%
Camanche, 75% / 128%
Warm Springs, 59% / 113%
New Hogan, 54% / 155%
Castaic, 76% / 100%
Clear Lake/Cache Creek, 49% / 120%

SF Bay Reservoirs (and of local interest, where available)
Hetch Hetchy, 84% / 125%
Calaveras, 84% / 203%
Del Valle, 39% / 107%
U San Leandro, 88% / 122%
San Pablo, 64% / 108%
Chabot, 86% / 107%
Briones, 84% / 106%
Lexington Reservoir, 44% / 148%
San Antonio Reservoir, 97% / 115%
Crystal Springs Reservoir, 69% / 100%

Despite the recent storms, snowpack is at 25% of normal, worst in the last 10 years, though the measurement year is only 25% complete. 

Capacity at the large reservoirs have held steady, YTD is down 1% to 5% across the board, not surprisingly. Mid-sized reservoirs down a few percent more. SFBA reservoirs largely holding steady, although I drove by Lexington, and it doesn't look to me like it's at 44% capacity, looks more full than that.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/01/02/s...ent=manual

[Mick]

RESSW.pdf (ca.gov)

Reservoir capacity updated for January 3, 2024 (using threepointer's scale). Listed with % of Average to date:

Large (1 MM+ AF):
Oroville, 66% / 129%
Shasta, 67% / 120%
Pine Flat, 58% / 184%
San Luis, 56% / 100%
New Melones, 82% / 150%
Trinity, 50% / 85%
Don Pedro, 80% / 120%
New Exchequer/Lake McClure, 64% / 151%
Berryessa, 76% / 106%
Almanor, 72% / 118%

Medium (300k - 999k AF, where available)
Folsom, 47% / 117% 
New Bullards, 65% / 108%
Diamond Valley, 91% / 129%
Indian Valley, 49% / 120%
Millerton Lake/Friant, 39% / 81%
Isabella, 34% / 139%
Lake San Antonio, 65% / 142%
Lake Tahoe/Tahoe City, 67% / 221%
Nacimiento, 54% / 154%
Camanche, 75% / 128%
Warm Springs, 59% / 113%
New Hogan, 54% / 155%
Castaic, 76% / 100%
Clear Lake/Cache Creek, 49% / 120%

SF Bay Reservoirs (and of local interest, where available)
Hetch Hetchy, 84% / 125%
Calaveras, 84% / 203%
Del Valle, 39% / 107%
U San Leandro, 88% / 122%
San Pablo, 64% / 108%
Chabot, 86% / 107%
Briones, 84% / 106%
Lexington Reservoir, 44% / 148%
San Antonio Reservoir, 97% / 115%
Crystal Springs Reservoir, 69% / 100%

Despite the recent storms, snowpack is at 25% of normal, worst in the last 10 years, though the measurement year is only 25% complete. 

Capacity at the large reservoirs have held steady, YTD is down 1% to 5% across the board, not surprisingly. Mid-sized reservoirs down a few percent more. SFBA reservoirs largely holding steady, although I drove by Lexington, and it doesn't look to me like it's at 44% capacity, looks more full than that.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/01/02/s...ent=manual

[M T]

News organizations love to sell newspapers.

I don't know what % of the yearly snowpack happens by Jan 3, but suppose it were 5%.  That we're at 25% of that 5% is not yet a real worry.  (Update, it appears water.ca.gov indicates the average snowpack at this time would be about 36% of the average snowpack on April 1.)

Is it 25% (reports from Jan 1)?  
As for snow pack (report as of Jan 3), https://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/prod...wccond.pdf reports it as 33% of normal.  (north 36%, central 32%, south 24%)   Up a third in 2 days?
As for precipitation (not snow pack) this water year, https://cww.water.ca.gov/ reports precipitation as 65% of normal as of 1/1.
https://snoflo.org/snow/report/california/  reports the snowpack is 40% today (Jan. 3).

My recollection of the long term forecast from the fall/winter was for a dry time in November & December, but overall pretty wet.
Ahhh... here are NOAA's long term outlooks:
   January  Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr
Summary: 
January: 40-50% chance that N. CA (Monterey & north) gets above average precipitation in January.  33% chance for every other part of CA gets above average precipitation.
Feb-Apr: 40-50% chance that Central & S. CA (SLO & south) gets above average precipitation.  33% chance for north Bay Area to SLO gets above average precipitation.  North of that, even chance of normal rainfall.

An interesting, related page
EPA's: Climate Change Indicators: Snowpack

---
Can you remind me why Trinity never got to 100% of normal once all the snow melted?  Is it just that it holds multiple years of run-off and that it was so low that even the very heavy year we had couldn't bring it back to normal?

[M T]

News organizations love to sell newspapers.

I don't know what % of the yearly snowpack happens by Jan 3, but suppose it were 5%.  That we're at 25% of that 5% is not yet a real worry.  (Update, it appears water.ca.gov indicates the average snowpack at this time would be about 36% of the average snowpack on April 1.)

Is it 25% (reports from Jan 1)?  
As for snow pack (report as of Jan 3), https://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/prod...wccond.pdf reports it as 33% of normal.  (north 36%, central 32%, south 24%)   Up a third in 2 days?
As for precipitation (not snow pack) this water year, https://cww.water.ca.gov/ reports precipitation as 65% of normal as of 1/1.
https://snoflo.org/snow/report/california/  reports the snowpack is 40% today (Jan. 3).

My recollection of the long term forecast from the fall/winter was for a dry time in November & December, but overall pretty wet.
Ahhh... here are NOAA's long term outlooks:
   January  Jan-Mar  Feb-Apr
Summary: 
January: 40-50% chance that N. CA (Monterey & north) gets above average precipitation in January.  33% chance for every other part of CA gets above average precipitation.
Feb-Apr: 40-50% chance that Central & S. CA (SLO & south) gets above average precipitation.  33% chance for north Bay Area to SLO gets above average precipitation.  North of that, even chance of normal rainfall.

An interesting, related page
EPA's: Climate Change Indicators: Snowpack

---
Can you remind me why Trinity never got to 100% of normal once all the snow melted?  Is it just that it holds multiple years of run-off and that it was so low that even the very heavy year we had couldn't bring it back to normal?

[cardcrimson]

News organizations love to sell newspapers.

True, but more importantly, water utilities love to raise rates. . . .Loved when EBMUD raised my rates several years ago because of a drought and they needed to curtail usage. When the drought was over, they had to raise rates again because users cut usage so much they weren't getting the revenue.

[cardcrimson]

News organizations love to sell newspapers.

True, but more importantly, water utilities love to raise rates. . . .Loved when EBMUD raised my rates several years ago because of a drought and they needed to curtail usage. When the drought was over, they had to raise rates again because users cut usage so much they weren't getting the revenue.

[81alum]

Can you remind me why Trinity never got to 100% of normal once all the snow melted?  Is it just that it holds multiple years of run-off and that it was so low that even the very heavy year we had couldn't bring it back to normal?

MT I don't know the specific answer this year to your question, but I can venture an educated guess.  The Trinity Dam was designed as part of a complex that diverted the Trinity River from flowing directly to the sea to instead flow though siphon tubes over to the Sacramento watershed, where the water could enter the bigger California water project. 

But at the time the dam was built, consciousness about the environmental effects of this diversion--which in some years completely dried up the Trinity River bed--was low.  In more recent years, guarantees to the Yurok and to environmental concerns have meant that more water is released to flow down the natural channel of the Trinity River.  My guess is that given the requirement to keep water flowing down the Trinity channel, the Trinity Dam project may never be fully used again.  It was a bad dam in many respects.

Dams like Shasta that do not divert water outside their watershed don't have the same problem.  Shasta uses the Sacramento River channel for sending its water to the California project.  That water gets taken out much further downstream and thus the upper fisheries of the Sacramento River do not get dried up by the project.

[81alum]

Can you remind me why Trinity never got to 100% of normal once all the snow melted?  Is it just that it holds multiple years of run-off and that it was so low that even the very heavy year we had couldn't bring it back to normal?

MT I don't know the specific answer this year to your question, but I can venture an educated guess.  The Trinity Dam was designed as part of a complex that diverted the Trinity River from flowing directly to the sea to instead flow though siphon tubes over to the Sacramento watershed, where the water could enter the bigger California water project. 

But at the time the dam was built, consciousness about the environmental effects of this diversion--which in some years completely dried up the Trinity River bed--was low.  In more recent years, guarantees to the Yurok and to environmental concerns have meant that more water is released to flow down the natural channel of the Trinity River.  My guess is that given the requirement to keep water flowing down the Trinity channel, the Trinity Dam project may never be fully used again.  It was a bad dam in many respects.

Dams like Shasta that do not divert water outside their watershed don't have the same problem.  Shasta uses the Sacramento River channel for sending its water to the California project.  That water gets taken out much further downstream and thus the upper fisheries of the Sacramento River do not get dried up by the project.

[Mick]

Can you remind me why Trinity never got to 100% of normal once all the snow melted?  Is it just that it holds multiple years of run-off and that it was so low that even the very heavy year we had couldn't bring it back to normal?

MT I don't know the specific answer this year to your question, but I can venture an educated guess.  The Trinity Dam was designed as part of a complex that diverted the Trinity River from flowing directly to the sea to instead flow though siphon tubes over to the Sacramento watershed, where the water could enter the bigger California water project. 

But at the time the dam was built, consciousness about the environmental effects of this diversion--which in some years completely dried up the Trinity River bed--was low.  In more recent years, guarantees to the Yurok and to environmental concerns have meant that more water is released to flow down the natural channel of the Trinity River.  My guess is that given the requirement to keep water flowing down the Trinity channel, the Trinity Dam project may never be fully used again.  It was a bad dam in many respects.

Dams like Shasta that do not divert water outside their watershed don't have the same problem.  Shasta uses the Sacramento River channel for sending its water to the California project.  That water gets taken out much further downstream and thus the upper fisheries of the Sacramento River do not get dried up by the project.

The largest dam removal in US history is happening just north of the California border as four of the six dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and Northern California are scheduled to be eliminated (three of them are hydroelectric dams). It will save salmon, steelhead, and lamprey among other species (it was once the third-largest salmon producer on the West Coast, but are down to a fraction of their production.

Dam removal on the Elwha River in Washington resulted in a quick recovery. Advocates are eyeing four dams on the Lower Snake River in Washington as the next big dam removal.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/122449440...rning_brew

[Mick]

Can you remind me why Trinity never got to 100% of normal once all the snow melted?  Is it just that it holds multiple years of run-off and that it was so low that even the very heavy year we had couldn't bring it back to normal?

MT I don't know the specific answer this year to your question, but I can venture an educated guess.  The Trinity Dam was designed as part of a complex that diverted the Trinity River from flowing directly to the sea to instead flow though siphon tubes over to the Sacramento watershed, where the water could enter the bigger California water project. 

But at the time the dam was built, consciousness about the environmental effects of this diversion--which in some years completely dried up the Trinity River bed--was low.  In more recent years, guarantees to the Yurok and to environmental concerns have meant that more water is released to flow down the natural channel of the Trinity River.  My guess is that given the requirement to keep water flowing down the Trinity channel, the Trinity Dam project may never be fully used again.  It was a bad dam in many respects.

Dams like Shasta that do not divert water outside their watershed don't have the same problem.  Shasta uses the Sacramento River channel for sending its water to the California project.  That water gets taken out much further downstream and thus the upper fisheries of the Sacramento River do not get dried up by the project.

The largest dam removal in US history is happening just north of the California border as four of the six dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and Northern California are scheduled to be eliminated (three of them are hydroelectric dams). It will save salmon, steelhead, and lamprey among other species (it was once the third-largest salmon producer on the West Coast, but are down to a fraction of their production.

Dam removal on the Elwha River in Washington resulted in a quick recovery. Advocates are eyeing four dams on the Lower Snake River in Washington as the next big dam removal.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/122449440...rning_brew

[cardcrimson]

Can you remind me why Trinity never got to 100% of normal once all the snow melted?  Is it just that it holds multiple years of run-off and that it was so low that even the very heavy year we had couldn't bring it back to normal?

MT I don't know the specific answer this year to your question, but I can venture an educated guess.  The Trinity Dam was designed as part of a complex that diverted the Trinity River from flowing directly to the sea to instead flow though siphon tubes over to the Sacramento watershed, where the water could enter the bigger California water project. 

But at the time the dam was built, consciousness about the environmental effects of this diversion--which in some years completely dried up the Trinity River bed--was low.  In more recent years, guarantees to the Yurok and to environmental concerns have meant that more water is released to flow down the natural channel of the Trinity River.  My guess is that given the requirement to keep water flowing down the Trinity channel, the Trinity Dam project may never be fully used again.  It was a bad dam in many respects.

Dams like Shasta that do not divert water outside their watershed don't have the same problem.  Shasta uses the Sacramento River channel for sending its water to the California project.  That water gets taken out much further downstream and thus the upper fisheries of the Sacramento River do not get dried up by the project.

The largest dam removal in US history is happening just north of the California border as four of the six dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and Northern California are scheduled to be eliminated (three of them are hydroelectric dams). It will save salmon, steelhead, and lamprey among other species (it was once the third-largest salmon producer on the West Coast, but are down to a fraction of their production.

Dam removal on the Elwha River in Washington resulted in a quick recovery. Advocates are eyeing four dams on the Lower Snake River in Washington as the next big dam removal.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/122449440...rning_brew

Who needs electricity, anyway. Oh wait. . . .

On the water side, KCBS radio had a special Sunday morning focused on the looming dire water shortage because the snowpack this year was a ten year low. I didn't listen to it. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Can you remind me why Trinity never got to 100% of normal once all the snow melted?  Is it just that it holds multiple years of run-off and that it was so low that even the very heavy year we had couldn't bring it back to normal?

MT I don't know the specific answer this year to your question, but I can venture an educated guess.  The Trinity Dam was designed as part of a complex that diverted the Trinity River from flowing directly to the sea to instead flow though siphon tubes over to the Sacramento watershed, where the water could enter the bigger California water project. 

But at the time the dam was built, consciousness about the environmental effects of this diversion--which in some years completely dried up the Trinity River bed--was low.  In more recent years, guarantees to the Yurok and to environmental concerns have meant that more water is released to flow down the natural channel of the Trinity River.  My guess is that given the requirement to keep water flowing down the Trinity channel, the Trinity Dam project may never be fully used again.  It was a bad dam in many respects.

Dams like Shasta that do not divert water outside their watershed don't have the same problem.  Shasta uses the Sacramento River channel for sending its water to the California project.  That water gets taken out much further downstream and thus the upper fisheries of the Sacramento River do not get dried up by the project.

The largest dam removal in US history is happening just north of the California border as four of the six dams on the Klamath River in southern Oregon and Northern California are scheduled to be eliminated (three of them are hydroelectric dams). It will save salmon, steelhead, and lamprey among other species (it was once the third-largest salmon producer on the West Coast, but are down to a fraction of their production.

Dam removal on the Elwha River in Washington resulted in a quick recovery. Advocates are eyeing four dams on the Lower Snake River in Washington as the next big dam removal.

https://www.npr.org/2024/01/12/122449440...rning_brew

Who needs electricity, anyway. Oh wait. . . .

On the water side, KCBS radio had a special Sunday morning focused on the looming dire water shortage because the snowpack this year was a ten year low. I didn't listen to it. . . .

[M T]

Who needs electricity, anyway. Oh wait. . . .

On the water side, KCBS radio had a special Sunday morning focused on the looming dire water shortage because the snowpack this year was a ten year low. I didn't listen to it. . . .

Ah, the politics of salmon vs renewable electricity.  Not a trivial question.
(An article on birds vs wind turbines. Another on Mojave Desert solar farm vs birds)

As of Thursday (1/11), snowpack water content was 42% of normal.  That's 11 days after reports of 25%.
   (I thought that was automated; I don't know why it didn't update over the weekend.)
Precipitation level is reported at 73% of normal by the state.   Statewide, the major reservoirs are at 114% of average levels.
Snowpack level is reported at 69% of normal by Snoflo.
I already posted the long range forecasts.  Obviously I can't say we're going to hit average, but the prediction suggests higher than average precipitation through the spring.

And, yet, KCBS has a special "focused on the looming dire water shortage"...
If only we could collect all the sweat and water from hand wringing, we'd be swimming in it.

Oh wait... I just checked the KCBS site and searched the past week for "water shortage" but nothing was relevant.
Maybe they're playing reruns?

[M T]

Who needs electricity, anyway. Oh wait. . . .

On the water side, KCBS radio had a special Sunday morning focused on the looming dire water shortage because the snowpack this year was a ten year low. I didn't listen to it. . . .

Ah, the politics of salmon vs renewable electricity.  Not a trivial question.
(An article on birds vs wind turbines. Another on Mojave Desert solar farm vs birds)

As of Thursday (1/11), snowpack water content was 42% of normal.  That's 11 days after reports of 25%.
   (I thought that was automated; I don't know why it didn't update over the weekend.)
Precipitation level is reported at 73% of normal by the state.   Statewide, the major reservoirs are at 114% of average levels.
Snowpack level is reported at 69% of normal by Snoflo.
I already posted the long range forecasts.  Obviously I can't say we're going to hit average, but the prediction suggests higher than average precipitation through the spring.

And, yet, KCBS has a special "focused on the looming dire water shortage"...
If only we could collect all the sweat and water from hand wringing, we'd be swimming in it.

Oh wait... I just checked the KCBS site and searched the past week for "water shortage" but nothing was relevant.
Maybe they're playing reruns?

[Mick]

Atmospheric rivers on their way for NorCal, one on Friday, one on Sunday, per NYT. A third will hit midweek, and a fourth affecting SoCal will happen by the end of next week.

Atmospheric Rivers Forecast to Bring Rain to California and The West - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[Mick]

Atmospheric rivers on their way for NorCal, one on Friday, one on Sunday, per NYT. A third will hit midweek, and a fourth affecting SoCal will happen by the end of next week.

Atmospheric Rivers Forecast to Bring Rain to California and The West - The New York Times (nytimes.com)