<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.5659" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>All,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Several weeks ago there was a letter to the editor piece in the Redding
Record Searchlight suggesting an "out of the box" solution to increased CVP
storage.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Basically, the idea was to excavate Shasta and Trinity reservoirs during
times of "low water" as apposed to increasing dam height, etc.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>This seems like a good idea to me to increase storage. Is there any
reason why this wouldn't work? My simple appraisal sees increased storage,
minimal environmental impact and no change to the existing footprint of the
reservoirs. A quick look at a topo map shows a 30-50% increase in storage
just by removing the earth behind the dams.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Makes sense to me...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT lang=0 face=Arial size=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" PTSIZE="10">Lawrence
Lake, RPF <BR>Redding, CA
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></FONT></DIV></FONT><BR><BR><BR><DIV CLASS="aol_ad_footer" ID="b0abc0d8593c678a9ce00185de2159a"><FONT style="color: black; font: normal 10pt ARIAL, SAN-SERIF;"><HR style="MARGIN-TOP: 10px">AOL Search: Your one stop for directions, recipes and all other Holiday needs. <a href="http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1212792382x1200798498/aol?redir=http://searchblog.aol.com/2008/11/04/happy-holidays-from-aol-search/?ncid=emlcntussear00000001
">Search Now</a>.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>