DAMS AHOY

In Royal Gorge LLC's (RG) latest Q and A they underscore, literally, the need for increased water storage (or wells-as if), in order to provide water for the over 1000 units they have planned for Donner Summit.

The quantity of water needed for so much development is enormous; not an amount a few tanks rustled up from the old Ponderosa Ranch will be adequate holding receptacles for.  RG is talking dams, and that would mean a dam on Serena Creek, a dam on Van Norden Meadow, or both.  RG's proposed impoundments at "Lake Camp" won't do the job, as they don't even propose to build them until phase 2 of their project-up to 6 years after groundbreaking. 

Oh, and about those impoundments. RG's latest "cut off your nose to spite your face" move has been to have one of their many lawyers tell SLCWD that SLCWD is not allowed to consider "recreational" use of water in Serene Lakes. If that is true, then SLCWD can't divert water from Serene Lakes up to fill RG's west impoundment, the one that's intended for scenic and recreational purposes....

I have a few questions about dams I'd like to ask RG:

Serena Creek is a class one perennial trout stream, and a tributary to the wild and scenic North Fork of the American River. SLCWD has summer obligations to bypass any precipitation into Serena Creek, hence, despite holding rights to water, the district has duties to Serena Creek and downstream users. How, as "conservationists" can you justify building a new dam on Serena Creek? Are your rights as developers who bought land unzoned for the development you propose greater than need to protect habitat, a tributary to a major river, and the rights of downstream users? 

You held out to the public (I won't use the word promise, because what's a developer's promise worth?) that you would protect Van Norden Meadow last Spring, which to most folks sounded like you weren't going to dam it. You then went on to include damming Van Norden Meadow as one of your potential sources of water in documents submitted to Placer County in June, and also went hat in hand to NID and PG and E asking about getting water rights to some of that already allocated water flowing down the South Yuba River. So what's it to be- are you going to protect the meadow, or are you going to dam it?  You can't do both.

Do you know how long it takes to get dams permitted in California?  Do you think local environmental groups are going to play hopscotch while you go through the process, or do you think, maybe, instead, they'll raise a whole lot of ruckus? (hint-(b) is more likely)  Where in heaven's name are you getting investors patient enough to  wait while you wallow in your water difficulties?  I'd like to know, as there's a really good investment opportunity up at Dyer Mountain, which maybe they'd like to come in on......

If the success of your development is predicated upon the building of new dams, one at the headwaters of the South Yuba River, and the other blocking a tributary to the headwaters of the North Fork American River, then I think you're going to be in for a long, dry season.