Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the Golden State. Please post partners requests and trip plans in the California Climbing Partners forum.
 

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby MoapaPk » Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:14 am

willytinawin wrote:At least you are cool about it and don't go storming around ordering everyone within 5 miles of your property to go to jail. :wink:


I have asked people to leave, when they bring their dogs on my yard to piss and crap. Who knows, maybe a few molecules of that dog crap were once in me. But it's still crap.
User Avatar
MoapaPk

 
Posts: 7669
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 7:42 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, United States
Thanked: 761 times in 494 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby willytinawin » Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:15 am

Bob Burd wrote:
willytinawin wrote:It's one thing to get free water and sell it for a profit.


DWA is a public agency. I don't think their gig is a for-profit scam.

Do you feel that they are over-stepping by harassing people outside section 33? Do you feel that because they "own" sec. 33 that they can forbid people from parking or hiking in the neighboring sections?
User Avatar
willytinawin

 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:03 am
Location: Cat City, California
Thanked: 83 times in 68 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby willytinawin » Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:26 am

From their website:
Local Supply Facts
About 95 percent of DWA water is pumped from deep wells located throughout the service area. The other 5 percent is mountain stream water from Snow Creek, Falls Creek and Chino Creek.



DWA pumps using 25 active wells into the water system with six pressure zones—which includes about 22,000 active services throughout 369 miles of pipeline and serves about 71,000 people. The agency utilizes 28 reservoirs with the capacity to store 59 million gallons.



Annual production for DWA is about 43,000 acre feet (more than 14 billion gallons) annually.



The agency replenishes the groundwater with water from the State Water Project. Because there is no direct pipeline from the SWP to Palm Springs, the agency exchanges water with Metropolitan Water District. Replenishment water comes from the Colorado River Aqueduct. DWA uses the water from two connections to fill recharge basins, located at Whitewater and Mission Creek.



From 1973 to 2008, DWA and CVWD have replenished the groundwater basins with more than 2.1 million acre feet of water at Whitewater River and Mission Creek subbasins.



The agency also gets water from mountain streams including Chino Creek, Snow Creek and Falls Creek.



DWA gets about 3 million gallons a day from stream supply and about 78 million gallons per day in well capacity.



DWA works hard to ensure the purity of this water by carefully monitoring and controlling the quality of water that we supply to our customers.



Well-trained DWA employees provide information, service hook ups and emergency assistance in the case of accidents or other problems affecting service to our customers.
============================================================================================
It's pretty much what I thought, the main source of their water supply IS the aquifier. That means that those houses at the end of Snow Creek Road are haveing a far greater impact on their water supply, and that their response to hikers is greatly exaggerated, ie "over the top". Furthermore, they DO utilize Chino Creek, which means that every time someone parks at the Tram lot and takes a long piss over the edge before going up to the valley station, well, thier piss is going into the DWA water supply. Why no uproar about the Tram parking lot and all their trash, piss, etc.?
User Avatar
willytinawin

 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:03 am
Location: Cat City, California
Thanked: 83 times in 68 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby The Chief » Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:08 am

willytinawin wrote:From their website:
Local Supply Facts
About 95 percent of DWA water is pumped from deep wells located throughout the service area. The other 5 percent is mountain stream water from Snow Creek, Falls Creek and Chino Creek.



DWA pumps using 25 active wells into the water system with six pressure zones—which includes about 22,000 active services throughout 369 miles of pipeline and serves about 71,000 people. The agency utilizes 28 reservoirs with the capacity to store 59 million gallons.



Annual production for DWA is about 43,000 acre feet (more than 14 billion gallons) annually.



The agency replenishes the groundwater with water from the State Water Project. Because there is no direct pipeline from the SWP to Palm Springs, the agency exchanges water with Metropolitan Water District. Replenishment water comes from the Colorado River Aqueduct. DWA uses the water from two connections to fill recharge basins, located at Whitewater and Mission Creek.



From 1973 to 2008, DWA and CVWD have replenished the groundwater basins with more than 2.1 million acre feet of water at Whitewater River and Mission Creek subbasins.



The agency also gets water from mountain streams including Chino Creek, Snow Creek and Falls Creek.



DWA gets about 3 million gallons a day from stream supply and about 78 million gallons per day in well capacity.



DWA works hard to ensure the purity of this water by carefully monitoring and controlling the quality of water that we supply to our customers.



Well-trained DWA employees provide information, service hook ups and emergency assistance in the case of accidents or other problems affecting service to our customers.
============================================================================================
It's pretty much what I thought, the main source of their water supply IS the aquifier. That means that those houses at the end of Snow Creek Road are haveing a far greater impact on their water supply, and that their response to hikers is greatly exaggerated, ie "over the top". Furthermore, they DO utilize Chino Creek, which means that every time someone parks at the Tram lot and takes a long piss over the edge before going up to the valley station, well, thier piss is going into the DWA water supply. Why no uproar about the Tram parking lot and all their trash, piss, etc.?

Like I said, this is all a moot point.

What part of Private Property do you and others not get.... regardless what, why, when, where, how etc.

All the above and any other sematical debates are completely moot to the point.... stay off their land. It only makes things worse for those that may start communicating with senior DWA officials and attempt to work something out.

This issue touches home as this same semantic bending attitude pretty much screwed away all in process ACCESS contingency efforts by local ACCESS and Climber orgs, of which I was spearheading last fall, in a local Inyo County PP area. The owner got sick and tired of chasing off climbers etc and repairing damaged signs and fences. He finally said enough is enough and told the BLM and myself, NO more. Stay off my land. The local County Sheriff is well aware of the situ, will arrest and prosecute to the fullest extent, all trespassers.
The Chief

 
Thanked: time in post

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby willytinawin » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:20 am

I said it earlier, I do not advocate trespassing. I would never set foot on section 33. But, if someone parks in front of my house on the street, do I have the right to harass them? You people are selecting little bites of what I said and not reading the entire message. Some people here sound like they are not on the side of climbers, but I digress. Also, someone earlier said that the DWA is an agency, not a private entity. Do you honestly think that an agency is going to tell the truth? Come on people, local politics are the dirtiest by far, of all politics. Like I said earlier, you can drive three hours to the Tram, get out and take a piss and no big deal, even though it is Chino Creek, directly below your car! But if you dare park or set foot within a couple of miles of section 33, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It seems to me like selective enforcement. They said they had to shut down their water system because a hiker took a crap near Snow Creek. Do you know how many craps are taken each year, how many diapers are thrown down the embankements into Chino Creek every year at the six Tramway parking lots? I bet a lot more than one. Their website says that 95% of their water comes from the aquifier, and the other 5% from Snow, Falls and Chino Creeks. Thus, sec 33 represents at most 3-4% of their water supply. It seems to me that instead of picking on hikers, their budget would better serve their customers to learn from what just happened in Japan and prepare their system for when the san andreas farts and wreaks havoc on them. Or at least moniter the people who park at the Tramway lots. But they are an "agency" so I guess that means they are really super nice , honest people. Who probably replace their fleet of trucks every four years and bill it to the customer base.
Go ahead, pick out three words of what I said, and let me have it. But the message from me is this: do not trespass on sec 33 AND the DWA is over reacting to the situation on snow Creek when you compare it to some of the other real/ potential problems to their system.
User Avatar
willytinawin

 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:03 am
Location: Cat City, California
Thanked: 83 times in 68 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby Bob Burd » Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:57 am

willytinawin wrote:Some people here sound like they are not on the side of climbers

Like most things, it isn't a black/white issue. The climbers (myself included, since I've been up there) are not without significant fault in this. Back on page 1 I mentioned that last year the climbers were confronted in sections 21 and 28 to the north of section 33. Seems a bit preemptive to me. Still, I don't know whether those two sections are public or private, but I suspect it is some combination (if anyone knows for sure, please speak up) of both. There are private residences as well as utility buildings and roads located within them. If a climber is going to avoid section 33 they would also avoid those other two sections because section 33 is squarely situated to make it almost impossible to avoid going through it. Those going around section 33 have done so starting from sections further east - no one in those areas has been hassled as far as I know. Is the DWA overreacting? Many of us think so. But they aren't some sort of evil entity, either.
willytinawin wrote:Also, someone earlier said that the DWA is an agency, not a private entity. Do you honestly think that an agency is going to tell the truth? Come on people, local politics are the dirtiest by far, of all politics.

I mentioned that the DWA is a public agency only to counter your suggestion that someone was making an ill-gotten profit from public water sources. Suddenly you made it about telling the truth? Where did that come from?
User Avatar
Bob Burd
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4127
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 10:42 pm
Location: San Jose, California, United States
Thanked: 473 times in 240 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby Sam Page » Fri Apr 01, 2011 7:49 am

Bob Burd wrote:Back on page 1 I mentioned that last year the climbers were confronted in sections 21 and 28 to the north of section 33. Seems a bit preemptive to me. Still, I don't know whether those two sections are public or private, but I suspect it is some combination (if anyone knows for sure, please speak up) of both.


Section 28 is public. It is part of the San Bernardino National Forest. Section 21 is outside of the SBNF. It is a mix of private and public lands. Snow Creek Road, where hikers and climbers park, is public.

Ok, now will you organize another Sierra Challenge?
User Avatar
Sam Page

 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Orange County, California, United States
Thanked: 9 times in 6 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby Bob Burd » Fri Apr 01, 2011 3:52 pm

Sam Page wrote:Ok, now will you organize another Sierra Challenge?


Ok, you sold me. Sign up here.
User Avatar
Bob Burd
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 4127
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2001 10:42 pm
Location: San Jose, California, United States
Thanked: 473 times in 240 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby drpw » Fri Apr 01, 2011 4:29 pm

The Chief wrote:What part of Private Property do you and others not get.... regardless what, why, when, where, how etc.


What part of no one is advocating trespassing don't you get? Does owning section 33 make it illegal for us to discuss access issues? Does it make it illegal for us to question the situation? Does it make it illegal for us to try to figure out an alternative? Is anything that has been said here so far been detrimental to the effort to gain access? I think everyone here has the intention to respect the DWA but also try to resolve the situation.

I'll save you from typing a response to this: private property ....... moot point .......... spearheaded effort ........ don't understand ......... trespassing.
User Avatar
drpw

 
Posts: 243
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 9:47 pm
Location: Santa Ana, California
Thanked: 21 times in 17 posts

The following user would like to thank drpw for this post
willytinawin

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby willytinawin » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:00 pm

drpw wrote:
The Chief wrote:What part of Private Property do you and others not get.... regardless what, why, when, where, how etc.


What part of no one is advocating trespassing don't you get? Does owning section 33 make it illegal for us to discuss access issues? Does it make it illegal for us to question the situation? Does it make it illegal for us to try to figure out an alternative? Is anything that has been said here so far been detrimental to the effort to gain access? I think everyone here has the intention to respect the DWA but also try to resolve the situation.

I'll save you from typing a response to this: private property ....... moot point .......... spearheaded effort ........ don't understand ......... trespassing.


Thank you, that has been my point, I am simply discussing the issue, "thinking outside the bun" in a way. Instead of being a sheeple and acquiescing to the DWA mandate that no one will ever be allowed access to the north face of San Jac as long as they have any say, I am simply stating that all their other water resources are being impacted by human activity (the thousands of houses sitting atop their aquifer and the hordes of people parking along Chino Creek every day) and yet the one area where they act anally is Snow Creek, a tiny part of their resource, according to them. If they acted with uniformity, they should be trying to shut down the Tramway. And they are a local goverment agency, and if anyone ever follows such things, local govt agencies are often good ol' boy operations; any outsider that tries to run for "their" board, but does not meet with their approval is often met with much resistence. They claim that a hiker took a dump in section 33, and they had to close their water system as a result. I'd bet a hunnert dollars they are making that up. Most people are trying to get past sec 33 so fast they don't have time to go to the bathroom. They just don't want any smelly hippie hiker bums on "their" mountain, and that's it in a nutshell, they think they own San Jac. :|
User Avatar
willytinawin

 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 3:03 am
Location: Cat City, California
Thanked: 83 times in 68 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby surgent » Fri Apr 01, 2011 5:28 pm

I have been following this thread because the topic is very interesting to me, even though I do not live near the area in question. It's something we all encounter just about everywhere.

Personally I make every effort to know the status of the land I am (or intend to be) on. I make every effort to seek permission of the landowner if possible. However, there have been many occasions where I simply am not sure. I come across a fence I wasn't expecting, or some postings that have been weathered away, or some that are clearly incorrect (a common tactic: set the sign so it "appears" to include a public road right-of-way, when in reality the posted land is beside the road).

How effectively is famous Sect 33 posted? What kind of signs are present, and the fencing? If it is well-posted, then this works in your favor: if you or your car are clearly outside their land, then they have no purview to do anything to you, and you can fight this in a court if need be, but you need to be sure you have the evidence to back your claim.
User Avatar
surgent

 
Posts: 466
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:45 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 91 times in 57 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby Sam Page » Tue Apr 05, 2011 5:03 pm

FYI, I heard of a recent Snow Creek outing. It involved an encounter with the DWA, a call to the Sheriff, and an unplanned bivy. Have fun out there!
User Avatar
Sam Page

 
Posts: 259
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:20 pm
Location: Orange County, California, United States
Thanked: 9 times in 6 posts

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby testid » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:13 pm

Sam Page wrote:FYI, I heard of a recent Snow Creek outing. It involved an encounter with the DWA, a call to the Sheriff, and an unplanned bivy. Have fun out there!

This doesn't contribute anything to the discussion. Care to give any details that might be pertinent to the topic being discussed?
testid

 
Posts: 26
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 4:51 pm
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Re: Desert Water Agency (DWA) property

Postby estunum » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:28 pm

surgent wrote:How effectively is famous Sect 33 posted? What kind of signs are present, and the fencing? If it is well-posted, then this works in your favor: if you or your car are clearly outside their land, then they have no purview to do anything to you, and you can fight this in a court if need be, but you need to be sure you have the evidence to back your claim.


I have always been reluctant to join simmitpost since what I do is canyoneer, and find that other forums fit my needs best. Though this is an interesting topic as I am planning a trip to the upper falls and ran across this thread when looking for more info about section 33. I have been to this area only twice, once years ago and last week to recon for my trip. So I feel I can add about the postings in the area. To better visualize what I'm about to explain, I suggest you download my Google Earth file. KMZ format, 3.72MB.

Link: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/21171949/Falls%20Creek.kmz

I create such files on first time trips to canyons, or if it involves any form of cross-country or bushwhacking. You can disregard most of the labels, but the boxes are blue, red, green, for sections 33, 28, 21, respectively. On both of my encounters with DWA there, any point south past the start of the PCT trail (green icon) is not allowed. So one can use that road you see there (hiking), up to that point. There's no signs that say that until a few yards from there, where you'll see TRESPASSING signs about every half mile. Or so I guess, I didn't push my luck that much. That's just on the road.

On the delta floor, there are no signs whatsoever that let you know you're now stepping in section 33. DWA simply forbids the whole area as a whole, to avoid getting technical. If you do, one can go all the way up the road, and even to one of those installations you see on the map. They only own section 33 as far as I know, so I do not know why they claim section 28 too. They will stop you past the PCT start, but that is still section 28 a ways up. I see why they would do that, but it isn't technically theirs. I am not here to create friction by the way, let's get that straight. Throughout this thread there's quick finger pointing as if those asking questions are in a mission to trespass and to hell with the law. No. On both of my encounters, DWA has been polite and helpful. That's how I know about the signs further south. I don't intend, much less condone, trespassing.

One more note on the file, notice that you can check on or off any individual label from the left sidebar. By default, I have the topo map off, so if you find that helpful it's just a click away to turn it on.

EDIT:

From just reading here every possible mention about ownership of sec 33, it is often said that is per public records. Where is this record? Can someone point me in the correct direction to get it? I'd be handy to carry with me just in case they want to get froggy. Also, it might save my ass from just relying on forum posts, who knows, maybe they now own more sections.
User Avatar
estunum

 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:51 pm
Location: San Diego, California, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

PreviousNext

Return to California

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.