Lake Berryessa's Future Predicted by the City of Winters 14 Years Ago

Fourteen years ago the City Council of Lake Berryessa’s sister city, Winters, unanimously passed a resolution criticizing the Bureau of Reclamation’s proposed plans for Lake Berryessa. I’m reproducing it here in full because it was  so accurately prescient in its concerns.

Ironically, our stated efforts to “Preserve the Best, Improve the Rest.” of Lake Berryessa received no support from Napa County, any Napa city, nor our own Congressman. And Reclamation clearly ignored the concerns of the City of Winters.


City Council Resolution No. 2004-34 


BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Winters as follows:

WHEREAS, the Bureau of Reclamation are currently pursuing a Re-Use Plan for Lake Berryessa which serves as a main attraction and economic center for the City of Winters; and

WHEREAS, the City relies on the activity in an around the Lake to provide jobs and tax revenues to help subsidize the local economy and City operations; and

WHEREAS, the critical link between Winters and Lake Berryessa has been in existence since the original construction of the Monticello Dam; and

WHEREAS, under the re-use proposals, significant changes may occur which will significantly change the use of the Lake and the positive fiscal impacts to the City of Winters; and

WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to express our concerns on the most important concerns and impacts to the Winters Community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of

Winters that the City declares as follows:

Section 1. Closure of the southerly concession areas (Markley/Pleasure Cove’s) (partially or fully), even for renovation for an extended period could pose a serious economic impact to lake serving businesses. The City receives a significant amount of our sales tax from boaters passing to and from Markley Cove.

Section 2. The projected re-use of the areas, including reduction of day boaters and motorized craft from the Cove’s would provide for a considerable loss of local business to the Winters community. As described, the use of Berryessa would change to a greater houseboat and non-motorized use versus the current mix.

Section 3 The proposed uses for these areas would change from a mostly year-round to seasonal, thus reducing revenues to Winters for prolonged periods.

Section 4. Risk of single operator of an area the size of Lake Berryessa with the described multitude of uses. The selection of a single operator is inherently a significant risk because of the potential for failure.

Section 5. The lack of a phased approach by canceling all existing contracts within a two year period could create a catastrophic situation in the event that plans are not available for a transition of control and Lake management for users.

Section 6. Effects on citizens of Winters who extensively utilize Lake Berryessa.

Section 7 Under the current plan, it appears unlikely that the local operators could be as competitive as larger corporate operators in gaining the re-bid concession contracts. There is considerable uncertainty and probability that local operators could be required to remove existing facilities while a new operator installs new. This transition of deconstruction and construction could take many years.

Section 8. The City currently benefits in our traffic from the boat storage capabilities at Markley Cove. The current plan does not adequately define how this area might be re-used. If less storage is allowed, the City could experience a higher volume of boat transport traffic than currently experienced.

Section 9 Local employment- A number of Winters residents are currently employed by the local operators. The uncertainty of re-use and local employment is a concern.

Section 10 As proposed, the re-use plan appears to begin the exclusion of many of the current users of the Lake, for a more exclusive and restricted access for non-motorized users.

Section 11 the current interpretation of Public Law 93-975 by the Bureau’s seems inherently unfair to the current concessionaires. As adopted, PL 93-975 specifically provided for fair compensation to the concessionaires for improvements made at the facility, in the event that another lease was issued. It appears that under the current plans, these concessionaires would receive no compensation for facilities or improvements, which seems unjust.

Section 12 It is the request of the City Council of the City of Winters that the Bureau of Reclamation reconsider the use of Option B as the preferred alternative which includes a combination of multiple concessionaires and a phased implementation/transition of use.

Section 13 It is recommended that the Bureau consider other options put forth by citizens such as “A+” which recommends that the Bureau undertake a vigorous clean-up program of existing residences and leases to bring into compliance existing rules, ordinances and laws.

Section 14 The City Council believes that Reclamation’s DEIS Alternative “B” has not addressed the broad range of concerns of local communities like Winters.  The Council therefore requests that the Bureau of Reclamation open a formal public comment period for the economic analysis of the plan as well as reopen the comment period on the DEIS itself because of the lack of economic data to support the DEIS as proposed.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of October, 2004 by the following vote:

AYES:             Anderson, Fridae, Stone, Mayor Martinez

NOES:            None

ABSENT:       Chapman                                    


Napa County Supervisors Support Lake Berryessa Revitalization Plans:

Illusions of Progress or Realistic Long-Term Goals?

Is 2020-something a real time?

by Peter Kilkus

After more than two years of painfully slow progress, the Board of Supervisors has yet to finalize a Managing Partner Agreement (MPA) with the Bureau of Reclamation. Reclamation has a 20-year history delays and bureaucratic bungling that led to the present situation at the lake. The first phase of this debacle began with a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on November 7, 2000. 

"The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is initiating a formal Visitor Services Planning effort for the Lake Berryessa Recreation Area...The purpose of the Visitor Services Plan is to determine the type and level of commercial facilities and services that are necessary and appropriate for future long term operations." 

Yes, that was 18 years ago! Review the history of the process at:


In that story I calculated that the lake community had lost TEN years of progress. Add another year to that for no progress in 2018 - and probably another year or two before there’s actually any real development. That’s twelve to thirteen years of family recreation lost!

And now we have a proposed plan that tentatively starts slowy in 2019 and, disappointingly, stretches past 2025. 

Thanks to Barry Eberling of the Napa Register for another excellent summary of the recent meeting of the Board of Supervisors in which they voiced their support for the County taking over management of the Lake Berryessa recreatiorn areas, commonly refered to as “the resorts”.

https://napavalleyregister.com/news/local/napa-county-moving-closer-to-reviving-lake-berryessa- resorts/article_6113d9bb-3a45-538d-8fca-5edcf0250353.html

And sincere thanks to the Board of Supervisors and Molly Rattigan, Deputy County Executive Officer, for their clearly expressed support for this process. “This isn’t about doing it for net revenues,” Supervisor Diane Dillon said. “This is about doing it for net benefits for the greater community.”  

Download a PDF copy of the article and of the informational slides that were presented to the Board of Supervisors at:

Lake Berryessa Revitalization Plan: Article & Slides



Photo comparison of Lake Berryessa landmarks at a lake level of 424 feet - 16 feet below Glory Hole - on October 5, 2018.

Glory Hole Bridge Rock combo 100518


The latest issue of the Lake Berryessa News, October 2018, has been published. Download a pdf version here.

LBNews Pg 8&1 Oct18


October 8, 2017: Atlas Fire 1-Year Later

October 8, 2018: The Fires Never Stop

The October 2017 Northern California wildfires, also known as the Northern California firestorm, were a series of 250 wildfires that started burning across the state of California beginning in early October. 

Seventeen separate wildfires were reported at that time. These fires included the Tubbs Fire (which grew to become the most destructive wildfire in the history of California), the Atlas Fire, Nuns Fire, and others. 

Shortly after the fires ignited on October 8 and 9, they rapidly grew to become extensive, full-scale incidents spanning from 1,000 acres to well over 20,000 acres, each within a single day. 

By October 14, the fires had burned more than 210,000 acres while forcing 90,000 people to evacuate from their homes. 

The Northern California fires killed at least 44 people and hospitalized at least 185, making the week of October 8, 2017, the deadliest week of wildfires in California history.

And then came 2018.

The 2018 California wildfires were a series of wildfires that burned across the state. A total of 6,568 fires had burned an area of 1,502,293 acres as of September 25. The fires caused more than $3.336 billion in damages, including $1.78 billion in fire suppression costs. 

Through the end of August 2018, Cal Fire alone spent $432 million on operations. The Mendocino Complex Fire burned more than 459,000 acres, becoming the largest complex fire in the state's history, with the complex's Ranch Fire surpassing the Thomas Fire to become California's single-largest modern wildfire. On August 4, 2018, a national disaster was declared in Northern California, due to the massive wildfires burning there.

Lake Berryessa residents were spared any local tragedies until July. 

Rather, we had all been suffering from an almost PTSD-type of foreboding as fires burned around us, especially the approach of the County Fire, which ultimately burned through 90,288 acres. The fire started in Guinda due to an improperly installed electric livestock fence unit and burned inexorably south to Hwy 128 at Monticello Dam. 

The fire burned over the top of Berryessa Peak and for the first time in the history of Lake Berryessa the fire burned all the way down to the east side shoreline. Smoke from the fires filled the Lake Berryessa for weeks and added to the general unease. Beautiful sunsets did not make up for the smell of smoke and the inability to see from one end of the lake to the other.

There was much concern that the County Fire could jump the Narrows and head towards the Berryessa Highlands. Fortunately, this did not happen, and a week of conscious and subconscious fear abated. But then came July 28, 2018 and a major disaster in the Berryessa Highlands!

The Steele Fire destroyed homes and dreams after flames broke out suddenly around 4:30 p.m., Saturday, July 28, 2018. And despite many years of tree and brush clearing by the Berryessa Highlands Fire Safe Council aimed at preventing a fire like the County Fire from burning towards the Highlands, this fire started right inside the community on Arroyo Grande. 

The fire swept uphill in dry conditions and had burned several houses at the top of the ridge on Headlands Drive in less than an hour. Seven homes at the top of Headlands Drive burned, and one on Woodhaven Court. Total acreage burned was 135.

Neighbors helping neighbors absolutely saved homes on Arroyo Grande, Woodhaven, and beyond - and helped save lives by getting residents’ attention for evacuation. They held off the flames and saved houses in the first minutes of the fire. 

Additionally Capell Valley Volunteer Firefighters no doubt saved a half dozen houses on Woodhaven Ct. And the first on scene CAL FIRE Engine out of Spanish Flat was right there with them, as close to the fire as they could get, deflecting the fire away from Woodhaven. 

They, plus all the other resources on land and in the air, are the reasons so much of the Highlands neighborhood is still here.

The first rains of the 2018-2019 season are here. Lake Berryessa air is finally clear again. But as with the fires of 2017, those of 2018 will not soon be forgotten.


Things That Don't Belong In Your Napa County Recycling Bin

The recycling industry, both locally in Napa Valley and across California, is struggling mightily to process and sell recycled materials in the wake of changes in China’s import policies and the U.S.-China trade war that has resulted in tariffs being imposed on both countries.

Recycled materials are economic commodities, just like pork bellies and microchips, and their value rises and falls. When oil prices are low, it’s cheaper to make plastics from virgin materials (i.e., petroleum products). Buyers for recycled materials aren’t evenly distributed across the country, and their demand changes with other market forces. In part because of these pressures, Waste Management — the country’s largest waste hauler — shuttered 20 recycling facilities in 2014 and 2015.

Recycling officials for Napa, American Canyon, and Upvalley communities gathered at Napa Recycling and Waste Services in American Canyon to send a common message to consumers: Clean up your recycling bins.  On average each person in the U.S. throws away about 4.5 pounds of waste per day, a number that has remained constant since 1990. If you contaminate your recycling, it becomes waste again.

So as a reminder, here are 16 things you should keep out of your recycling bin. 

Hardcover Books: While paperback books can go into your blue recycling can, hardcover books don't make the cut. The hardcover is not made of recyclable materials, but you can detach the pages from the cover and recycle the paper pages with your other mixed papers and toss the cover in the trash. You can also consider donating books in good condition to your local library.

Take-out containers: While they may be comprised of sturdy, reusable cardboard or plastic No. 1 (the same as soda bottles), Chinese food containers, pizza boxes, and other hot food packages cannot be recycled because of the food and grease that remain, breeding bacteria and contaminating other recyclables.

Plastic toys: Many children’s playthings are primarily plastic, but also contain other elements — such as metal or plastic resin — which makes them nearly impossible to recycle. Even those that are 100 percent plastic can have parts and shapes that might jam machinery.

Mirrors: Mirrors are nearly impossible to recycle because they have a reflective coating painted on the back of the glass so you can see your reflection. Hand with care if you are superstitious.

Gift wrap, bows and ribbons: Bows are made of a plastic-paper composite that cannot be recycled. Keep and reuse them or give them up altogether. Wrapping paper can be recycled, but only if it does not have any glitter, flocking or other embellishments on it.

Glass plates, bakeware and cups: Heat-resistant glassware cannot be recycled because of the process used to create it. Since the glass has been heat-treated to make it oven-, microwave- and dishwasher-safe, it will not melt with ordinary glass during recycling.

Single-use plastic bags: Plastic bags are hard to come by in Napa County, but it turns out plastic bags can be recycled, but there is a catch: they require a different process from other plastic recyclables. So, rather than tossing plastic bags, wraps, films or bubble wrap into your home recycling bin, find a local drop-off location. Many grocery and retail stores have boxes near the front of the store where you can stuff those bags and keep them out of landfills.

Food Wrappers: Like takeout boxes, any wrappers, even paper and plastic, that have touched food cannot be recycled even if they appear clean. However, you can recycle plastic to-go boxes if they've been washed out.

Clothes: Clothing in good condition should be donated to a local charity, thrift shop or consignment store. 

Light bulbs: The United States Environmental Protection Agency recommends recycling fluorescent bulbs and other bulbs that contain mercury, and all other household hazardous wastes, rather than disposing of them in regular household trash. However, that doesn't mean recycle light bulbs in your blue bin. You can take your light bulbs to Home Depot or Ace Hardware for disposal. For a list of locations, http://naparecycling.com/fluorescent-lamp-recycling/

Photographs: Due to chemical coatings used in the photo developing process, most older photographs cannot be processed for recycling. Check with your local historical society to see if any of your older photos might be worth preserving. Otherwise, send them to the trash.

Napkins: There are multiple reasons why you should not toss napkins, paper towels, tissues and similar items into your recycle bin. First, these paper products are typically created from paper that has been through the recycling process several times and is no longer usable. In addition, they often contain substances that could ruin other recyclables, such as grease and food.

Clothes hangers: Whether they’re made of wire or plastic, many recycling centers will not accept clothes hangers because they can jam the machinery. If you have too many hangers, most dry cleaners will gladly accept the wire version. Check with your favorite thrift store to see if they will accept your plastic hangers.

Ceramics and pottery: While ceramics can be recycled to make driveway underlayment and gravel pathways, you shouldn't put them in your household recycling bin. The general recycling plants in your hometown aren't equiped to breakdown this material, so you'll have to look for a specialized recycle center. Consider using online resources such as RecycleNation to find a recycling agency near you at recyclenation.com.

Sandwich bags: Just like with single-use plastic grocery bags, your standard zippered sandwich bag isn't recycled by general recycling facilities. The thin, film- like plastic can jam recycling equipment. Consider switching to reusable hard plastic containers as an alternative.

Styrofoam: What are you supposed to do with all those packing peanuts? While Styrofoam doesn't go in your home recycling bin, there are agencies in Napa County that will take some Styrofoam products. 

Plastic pile copy


State Turdometrics Regulations Negatively Impact Rural Napa County Residents

by Peter Kilkus

In 2009 new rules regulating on-site wastewater treatment systems — also known as septic tanks — were being proposed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). If the state approved the new rules, some speculated the cost could run into the thousands of dollars. This was a hugely incorrect underestimate. Now in 2019 the cost of a new standard septic system will run at least $20,000 - and an “engineered” system will run at least $45,000.

The issue of septic tanks’ impact on the environment popped up after certain conditions developed in Santa Monica Bay in Southern California causing concern among wealthy landowners there. This prompted the SWRCB to develop new regulations to prevent that kind of thing from happening again, despite the fact that the conditions in Santa Monica were nothing like the rest of California

In 2009 Supervisor Diane Dillon called the proposed regulations onerous because they propose a one size fits all solution. Dillon said. “They want to apply the same regulations to areas that don’t have a dirty water problem. We do not have dirty water problems.” The Napa County Board of Supervisors in 2009 took a unanimous position opposing the proposed regulations for a host of reasons. In a letter to the SWRCB, supervisors declared the regulations to be a “solution in search of a problem.”

Fast-forward to 2019. The rules were passed, everyone suffers, with no compelling environmental benefits. And the difference between needing to install an engineered system rather than a standard system? A few inches of dirt in the drip (leach) field! The rules require that the leach field have normal dirt down to three feet deep. If the soil becomes rocky, i.e., rocks mixed with dirt, an engineered system is required. In the rural areas of Napa County, especially in the hills around Lake Berryessa, it is difficult to find areas where the soil does not become rocky before a three foot depth is reached. 

In a recent septic system installation on sixty acres of land three miles from Lake Berryessa, a standard septic system (no electricity or special pumping systems needed) that had been operating well for more than 25 years, had to be replaced with a $45,000 engineered system because the available leach field sites only had normal dirt down to less than three feet. The rules did not allow for installing a much larger leach field to compensate for the lack of soil depth. If the dirt had been a few inches deeper a standard system could have been installed for $20,000. That’s a $25,000 cost difference for about 6 inches of soil depth - $4,000 per inch!

Supervisor Dillon complained about the “one size fits all” approach in 2009, and now in 2019 it’s a costly reality. And I challenge anyone to find a knowledgeable engineer, installation company, or county inspector who does not consider the present septic system rules anything but unscientific bureaucratic overkill - about $45,000 worth.    

1 site original copy
5 Tank 1
7 Initial assembly1 copy
9.5 System filter

Initial System Test Video (above)

16 Septic control box
15 Site final copy

How a “standard” septic system works

1. Wastewater, a polite term for sewage, from toilets, baths and sinks flows into a single septic tank. Gravity allows sewage to flow from house to tank. No electrical connections are required.

2. A septic tank holds the wastewater allowing solids to settle as sludge. Lighter liquids like oil float to the top as scum. Wastewater remains in the middle. Baffles at the inlet and outlet allow only the separated wastewater to flow out to a leach field (drain field). Buildup of scum and sludge are removed every 2-5 years.

3. A distribution box channels wastewater into perforated pipes. A drain field takes the wastewater and allows it to leach into the ground where bacteria decompose the remaining elements of the cleaner waste water. Disease-causing organisms, organic matter and most nutrients are removed. The clarified wastewater is distributed into the earth.

 Standard Septic System Control (above)

How an “engineered” septic system works

1. An engineered system includes a treatment unit, one or two processing tanks, and a control panel with a programmable dosing timer. In the treatment process, filtered wastewater from the clear zone in the processing tank is pumped to a distribution manifold in the treat­ment unit.

2. The effluent percolates down through the textile media, where aerobic (in the presence of oxygen) bacterial treatment occurs. The textile media’s complex fiber structure provides tremendous water-holding capacity and offers an extremely large surface area for biomass attachment. A percentage of the treated effluent is re-circu­lated for dilution and additional treatment, and the remaining treated effluent is discharged by pumps under pressure for dispersal to a drip field.

3. A drip field takes the wastewater and allows it to leach into the ground for bacterial decomposition. This is the same final process as that for a standard system except that it is pressurized and three independent electrical connections are required - two for the pumps and one for the control system.    

Engineered Septic System Control (above)


Welcome to the best map of Lake Berryessa you’ll ever find!

Click on the map to see a larger version.

Click here to download a pdf copy.

1 Lake Map Base 082317


Lake Berryessa Fills and Glory Hole Spills: The Video History

This amazing series of Lake Berryessa News Drone videos by Evan Kilkus documents the 45 foot rise of Lake Berryessa in 2017.



Full lake level history 2015
Lake Levels 2006 to 031217 edited-1



Berryessa Valley and the Town of Monticello Historical Photos and Videos from before Lake Berryessa covered it.

Berryessa Valley photo

Thanks to Carol Fitzpatrick for creating the Berryessa Valley Exhibit at the Spanish Flat Village Center described in the first video.




1958 - 2018

by Peter Kilkus

How Could the Government Have Done Something So Stupid?



Without THE LAKE BERRYESSA NEWS there would be no Lake Berryessa News…and finally there would be no definitive history of what happened at Lake Berryessa. Having participated directly for more than twenty years as an advocate for the lake in the fiasco that was the Bureau of Reclamation’s Visitor Services Plan, its farcical but tragic outcome, and the process of rebuilding, I have very strong views of the causes and results - supported by facts and data which were mostly obfuscated by the proponents of the destruction of the lake’s residential and business community.

The Bureau of Reclamation and their supporters destroyed family recreation at Lake Berryessa for a generation of families, children, and friends. Many people ask me about the history of the process that led to the present situation at Lake Berryessa. When I explain what happened most become incredulous and can't believe the government could have done something so stupid. "How could they have gotten away with that?" they exclaim.

The goal of this book is to provide the history and the context within which such an incredibly destructive course of action took place.

The initial timeline shows a condensed history of the process. The next section tells the story through the eyes of Lake Berryessa News articles. With the permission of the Napa Register, a parallel history is presented through contemporaneous editorials, articles, and letters to the editor from the Napa Register.

This book is not a traditional academic exercise in historical exposition. Academic historians define history as presenting facts without expressing any opinion or analysis of the events whereas memories are comprised of emotions that can have a great influence on the perception of an actual event. Critical historians live by the old saying of "there are two sides to every story and then there is the truth."

I’m more interested in the narrative approach to defining this history. Almost two decades have passed since this story began, and Lake Berryessa history has been created with every day of that twenty years.

This book is the raw, as-it-happened, unfiltered picture of what many of us lived through. It is organized chronologically; focused on a single coherent story; primarily descriptive but also analytical; primarily concerned with people but also the abstract circumstances in which they find themselves. To me a big part of the fascination with any history is trying to discover what was going on inside people's heads in the past, and what it was like to live in that past.

The future is finally looking brighter for Lake Berryessa. History continues to unfold.

Peter Kilkus, Lake Beryessa, 2018


Table Of Contents

Lake Berryessa History Timeline

How It All Began: The Origins of the “Big Lie”

Will History Repeat Itself In Reverse? What Happened in 1975?

Notice of Intent: Solano Project--Lake Berryessa; Napa, California

The “Big Lie” Continues: Task Force 7 Protests Reclamation’s Unjustified Negative Propaganda

The Facts Fight Back: What You Need to Know About the Battle for Berryessa

Local Businesses Fight Back: Chamber of Commerce Critique of Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Residents Fight Back: More Than 900 Unleash Scorn on Reclamation Plan

The Perversiopn of Public Law 96-375: Demolition Hardball by the Bureau of Reclamation

Reclamation Defends Unjust Requirement to Demolish ALL Existing Facilities At Lake Berryessa

The Pensus Years: The Lake Berryessa News View

Pensus: The Short Story That Was Actually A Fantasy

Pensus Signs Berryessa Contract – Begins Facilities Development – Announces Resort Openings

Springtime at Lake Berryessa: Pensus in Bloom?

They’re Off Like a Herd of Turtles! Bureaucracy at Berryessa

Lake Berryessa: When Do Past Memories Actually Become “HISTORY”?

Goodbye 2011: Another Year of Process Without Progress! Will 2012 Be Any Better?

A Lake Berryessa Midsummer Night’s Dream (With Apologies to William Shakespeare)

Applehood and Mother Pie! What’s Right, What’s Wrong, and Why

Catch-22: The Bureaucratic Double Bind Theory in Practice

Seasons, Cycles, and Radical Change: Chaos Theory - Lake Berryessa Style

Floundering About at Lake Berryessa (This is not a fishing story.)

SNAFU, FUBAR and BOHICA: Deciphering Berryessa’s Ancient Rock Sculpture at Steele Park

Feds Final Folly: The Destruction of Steele Park - Public Law 96-375’s Unintended Consequence

A Modest Radical Proposal: Transfer Management of Lake Berryessa to Napa County

A Path Forward To Revitalize Lake Berryessa: Fire The Feds!

Open Letter to the Federal Government: Get Out of Lake Berryessa!

Napa County and the Bureau of Reclamation: Working Together to Rebuild Lake Berryessa?

Will 2017 Be Lake Berryessa's Lucky Year?

Milestone Achieved! A Positive Report on the Potential Future Rebirth of Lake Berryessa!

The Future of Lake Berryessa Looks Brighter, But The Sun Also Rises A Bit Slowly

Napa County Releases Lake Berryessa Request For Information & Interest

Lake Berryessa History Through Napa Register Articles    

Lake Berryessa History Through Napa Register Editorials

Dueling Napa Register Letters To The Editor 


Here's an interview I did in 2010, three years after the interview below with Pat Monaghan and just after Pensus had been given the contract for 5 resorts. As we all know Pensus was subsequently kicked out in 2012.        

Here's a 2007 TV interview with Pat Monaghan, cofounder of Task Force 7 at Lake Berryessa, to give you some historical insight. Those of you who remember Pete Lucero will recognize his description of what we called "The Big Lie" - which turned into the "Epic Fail".


Some Interesting Past Stories

Napa County Frustrated by Bureau of Reclamation Stalling Tactics at Lake Berryessa as Talks on Resort Redevelopment “Continue”

Beating A Dead Horse With A StickOR Beating A Horse With A Dead Stick? BOR Betrays Berryessa AGAIN!

Revitalizing Lake Berryessa - Idling Towards Home

Protection, Preservation, or Private Profit?

A Fishy Fishing Story at Lake Berryessa

Undercover agents and all…plus a new Fishing Guide Policy from Reclamation

A Tale of Two Aircraft Tragedies - Twenty Years Apart

Reclamation Releases Final Environmental Assessment (EA) For Lake Berryessa Recreation Areas Development

"Holes In History" at Lake Berryessa: Simple Incompetence, Fervent Ignorance, Malicious Arrogance

Who Will Run The New Lake Berryessa Resorts?

2017: The Year In Review Through Lake Berryessa News Headlines

Calls To Action For The Survival 

Of The Human Race

The Great Lake Berryessa (Atlas) Fire of 2017

Atlas Fire Timeline From The Berryessa Highlands

What Is That Red Stuff Falling From The Sky?

Circle Oaks Fire - The Great Escape

Lake Berryessa 1971: Controversy Begins (Oakland Tribune)

My First Fishing Trip on Lake Berryessa

The Destruction of Steele Park Resort

Analysis of the Creation of the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument - the Dumbest National Monument in the United States

Napa County Wildfire Awareness Resources

Lake Berryessa History: The Summer of Love (1967) versus The Summers of Chaos (1998-1999) 

Exciting New Game Fishing Opportunity at Lake Berryessa

Rattlesnakes: Friend or Enemy – or just a primal fear?

Alternative A+ Executive Summary


Special Publications

Final Ragatz Report (75MB PDF)

Ragatz Summary Recommendations (75 KB PDF)


Conspiracy Theory Or Automatic Pilot: The Economic Roots Of Environmental Destruction        

By Peter F. Kilkus 

Download PDF of this report (2 MB)

As Lake Berryessa Turns!

Temperature and Fishing in a Warm, Monomictic Lake    


The Amazing Foods of Chef Neiman Marxist

Chef Neiman Marxist French rev1


Winters Express logo

The Winters Express


ACDC Intros mix


Glory Hole Overflows

County Berryessa Map Large

pKilkus@gmail.com                       © Peter Kilkus 2018