top
Central Valley
Central Valley
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Is Temperance Flat Dam really just a shell game for real estate developers?

by Deirdre Des Jardins
The $11.1 billion state water bond would, among other things, authorize $3 billion for "new storage,", including a proposed dam at Temperance Flat, on the San Joaquin River above Friant Dam in Fresno County. The second dam is supposed to increase the reliability of the water supply for Eastside San Joaquin Valley farmers.
temperanceflatpic.jpg
The dam-building crowd has long criticized Friant dam, built in the 1940's on the San Joaquin River, as being too small to capture the entire flows of the river in wet years. They forget that the dam was never designed to divert the entire flow of the river. In fact many promises were made by the federal government that only surplus flows would be diverted south via the Friant-Kern canal.

Instead, when the dam was completed, the Bureau of Reclamation dried up the river, and sent the water south to big cotton growers. It was the first great water grab in the San Joaquin Valley for private interests. And it cheated regular Fresno residents of the many beneficial uses of the state's second largest river. Riverfront homeowners sued, but lost after a 16 year long legal battle. It took another 50 years to restore just 18% of the flow of the river to its natural course.

Fresno residents, having forgotten this history, and worried about shortages of water for farming, are pushing to build a second dam at Temperance Flat. The original purpose of the proposed second dam was to ensure the capture all flows of the San Joaquin River, ensuring that none of it was ever spilled by Friant dam to the dry San Joaquin riverbed. Even with this assumption, the dam did not make economic sense unless the public paid for half of it.

With the recently mandated river restoration flows, the dam makes even less sense.
Pre-restoration simulations prior showed that if the minimal pre-restoration flows to the river were maintained, the dam could at best change delivery of an average 116,000 acre feet of “surplus” high flow water in the winter. Currently the high flow water is released to San Joaquin growers and groundwater banks whenever Friant dam fills to the flood safety level. Instead, the water held in the new upstream dam could be stored and delivered on a schedule.

Why would anyone pay $3 billion for a dam that would simply change the timing of water deliveries to groundwater banks, which are specifically designed and operated to store unpredictable flood flows? The answer lies the need by real estate developers for "reliable" water supplies for new subdivisions. “Surplus” flood flows are not reliable and cannot be used as the primary water supply for a development. But if the water is held behind a dam, it becomes a contracted, reliable supply.

So the real benefits of Temperance Flat dam would go to the “conjunctive use partners” who would put up about half the money for the construction of the dam. These partners include the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, and the Westside Mutual Water Company controlled by Stewart Resnick, who owns about 140,000 acres in Kern County.

While the dam has been represented as increasing the reliability of the Friant water supply for agriculture, growers along the Friant-Kern canal would see little benefit from new contracts, because they would likely be too expensive for agricultural use. The growers would however, lose the high flow water remaining after the mandated San Joaquin Restoration flows, and likely also see a reduction in water for Friant Class 2 contracts.

One has to ask if this dam, sold to California taxpayers as “increasing surface storage,” is worth taxpayers paying half the $3 billion cost for the supposed public benefit, or whether it is really just a shell game for water brokers and real estate developers.

Add Your Comments
Listed below are the latest comments about this post.
These comments are submitted anonymously by website visitors.
TITLE
AUTHOR
DATE
Christoff Grossenbauer
Sat, Aug 16, 2014 1:49PM
Ron Arteno
Sat, Jan 19, 2013 11:07AM
Deirdre Des Jardins
Sun, Aug 8, 2010 2:10PM
Stephen Smith
Sun, Aug 8, 2010 1:20PM
Penny Melko
Sun, Aug 8, 2010 12:08AM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$80.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network