Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="deleted member" data-source="post: 156743" data-attributes="member: 816"><p>Not true PG. Nevermind that there isnt enough storage up there to make a difference.&nbsp; But, as an example: west bay, main bay, east devils and stump cover 188,000 acres at 1454. Thats a volume of about 3,500,000 acre-feet. I dont think that even includes irvin, alice, dry, chain, mikes, cavanaugh, sweetwater, Morrison,&nbsp; etc... anyway, to simply reduce it from 1454 to 1453 (3,315,000 acre-feet), you need to store 185,000 acre-feet someplace upstream. To bring it from 1454 to 1444 (about 2,000,000 acre-feet) you need to store 1,500,000 acre feet of water someplace. Considering that the entire basin is only 2,500,000 acres, you can start to see problems already without even doing the math on how many acres would actually need to be purchased,&nbsp; the cost of said purchase and the cost of actually moving dirt on these wetlands restoration projects. Add in the economic loss of flooding that many acres and you can really get a true feel for the cost. Given the geology of the basin, its currently being stored in the most economically efficient way. I am 95% certain the corp of engineers looked into your option, did some simple math and looked at a map for about 5 minutes and chose the cheaper and most beneficial option for all. But, guys like richard betting could never be told that.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="deleted member, post: 156743, member: 816"] Not true PG. Nevermind that there isnt enough storage up there to make a difference. But, as an example: west bay, main bay, east devils and stump cover 188,000 acres at 1454. Thats a volume of about 3,500,000 acre-feet. I dont think that even includes irvin, alice, dry, chain, mikes, cavanaugh, sweetwater, Morrison, etc... anyway, to simply reduce it from 1454 to 1453 (3,315,000 acre-feet), you need to store 185,000 acre-feet someplace upstream. To bring it from 1454 to 1444 (about 2,000,000 acre-feet) you need to store 1,500,000 acre feet of water someplace. Considering that the entire basin is only 2,500,000 acres, you can start to see problems already without even doing the math on how many acres would actually need to be purchased, the cost of said purchase and the cost of actually moving dirt on these wetlands restoration projects. Add in the economic loss of flooding that many acres and you can really get a true feel for the cost. Given the geology of the basin, its currently being stored in the most economically efficient way. I am 95% certain the corp of engineers looked into your option, did some simple math and looked at a map for about 5 minutes and chose the cheaper and most beneficial option for all. But, guys like richard betting could never be told that. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA