Metropolitan’s help could bring political support for Sites

The immediate reaction by many locals to news that Southern California is interested in Sites Reservoir might be the suspicion that there is a grab being made for Northern California water.

We’re always worried about that … rightly or wrongly.

The truth is, in this case, if you’re a supporter of the proposed Sites off-stream reservoir, you should probably welcome interest by the Metropolitan Water district of Southern California. They have some money they can throw at the project, as well as some experience that might come in handy as supporters go about putting the project together and seeking funding.

Just as importantly, they represent a large number of people … so they have some political clout. And we might as well admit it: no matter how much the project might make sense, it’s going to take political interest.

The southern water district announced a couple weeks ago it was interested in investing in the reservoir by supporting the planning of the project. At a board meeting last week, the agency decided to move ahead with the investment – some $1.5 million to help keep the planning moving along that could net them some 50,000 acre-feet of water, once it’s up and running and has water to ration out.

The Metropolitan chairman, in a press release, touched on the thing that is going to make a difference when he said of the vote: “It also enhances the good faith effort being made by water agencies throughout the state to increase stored surface water in California, particularly in facing the uncertainties of climate change.”

There will be debate about how to enhance water storage in California and whether large reservoirs are the way to go. What he said lends credence to the plan.

Those dollars Metropolitan is willing to invest would be used in applying for Proposition 1 funding through the State Water Commission. Proposition 1, approved by voters, made $2.7 billion in funding for water storage – a portion of that money would be needed to get Sites, located on the Glenn/Colusa county line, built.

Sites, as proposed, would have a storage capacity of about 1.9 million acre feet - twice that of Bullards Bar. It’s estimated the project would cost $4.8 billion. The reservoir would be located several miles west of the Sacramento River. During wet months, when the river is at high levels, water would be pumped into the reservoir. Water stored in the lake could be used for homes, businesses, agriculture, environmental flows, and could play a part in flood management. If construction could start as soon as 2022, it could go into operation as soon as 2029.

If we’d had the messages going back and forth between nuclear powers in the 1960s that we have happening today, there would have been a bunch of announcements and emergency broadcasts and stories reminding us to know where the closest fallout shelter was.

It was taken seriously. There were drills and tours of shelters for kids. Parents talked over the prospect of what to do if there were a nuclear attack. There was a fair amount of angst … you got that even as a kid. But there was a sense that civilians could cope.

Nowadays? There must be some emergency operations plans for a nuclear attack, right? But when’s the last time anyone had a conversation about that (a “reasonable person” sort of talk, not the survivalist sort of thing)?

Are we so sure there won’t be a nuclear war? Or are we so sure that if there is one, there’s no need to worry about survival? We’re thinking of producing a story package about whatever happened to our old fallout shelters, the barrels of crackers stored in them, and preparing for the worst.

Thoughts?