🚀 go-pugleaf

smtp.syix.com writes:
>The article by "Friends of the River" entitled "California's Best
>Opportunity to Achieve Improved Flood Control While Restoring Wetlands &
>Wildlife Habitat" was disingenuous and misleading.  When a follow up
>post by (a self proclaimed dam engineer) suggested dams too should be
>considered as one of many viable flood control alternatives, the
>environmental elitists came out of the woodwork to hurl personal
>attacks, junk science and anything else at this person in order to
>suppress the idea of yet another dam.

Please look up the definition of "elitist".  You seem to think it is just
a noise word, to be thrown in whenever you want.  If you think that only
dam engineers may comment on the wisdom of dam building, then I'm afraid
that it is you who are an elitist.

>Whether or not people died in
>floods was just down right irrelevant; they just couldn't have cared
>less. One such poster's reply was "Move to higher ground".

And that's completely appropriate.  Building in flood plains is stupid.
Spending billions of dollars on engineering projects to make it safer
to build in flood plains compounds the stupidity.  I certainly won't
say that flood control dams are *never* appropriate, but they are an
expensive and over-used option.  They are a big-government solution;
usually those who attack environmentalists accuse the environmentalists
of advocating "big government" but in the case of dams it is the reverse.

>While they accuse farmers of having lobbyist that pour money into
>politicians pocket books, they fail to disclose how many politician's
>coffers they've filled. What hypocrites!

You speak as though the environmental lobbyists have a lot of money.
They don't.  The amount of money spent by environmental lobbies is
miniscule compared to that spent by the agribusiness lobby, or even
by one company (ADM, the biggest agribusiness lobbyist) alone.  It is
a drop in the bucket.

>It seems as though there's
>always someone else available for them to blame. It would be taboo for
>them to accept responsibility for any cause & effect relationship.

Bizarre.  You build in a flood plain is a cause; you get flooded is an
effect.  It is the developers that are refusing to accept responsibility.
It is the environmentalists who are pushing responsibility in this
particular case.

>The suggestion to move is a little LATE,

It's not a new suggestion.

>and the mere idea that stopping
>further development will somehow rescind the need for flood control is
>ridiculous.

Of course, but this is a straw man.  No one's saying that no other means
of flood control should be attempted.

You keep tossing the phrase "junk science" around, but you don't quote
respected scientists, you quote politicians, e.g.

>Both US Representative
>Wally Herger & California Assemblyman Bernie Richter have stated their
>concerns that a pond habitat built just 600 ft from the Yuba levee
>breach may have contributed to the flood disaster.

Big deal.  Where is their evidence?

>How much junk science was presented in these elitist arguments? 

How much junk science is in Herger and Richter's argument?

>For more information on the connection between environmental elitist and
>junk science, go to http://www.junkscience.com.

I've looked at that site.  It is in itself junk science.  Some of their
arguments would make a tobacco lobbyist proud.

I am astounded to see that this site argues against Mexico banning DDT.
If it weren't for the US ban on DDT, the American bald eagle, symbol of
the country, might well be extinct by now.  The reproductive problems
in birds referred to in

http://www.junkscience.com/news/mexican-ddt-ban.html

are severe: the eggs are so thin that they crack when the mother bird
sits on them.  Do you think that's not going to do anything to people?
But the major flaw is that it ignores the fact that other insecticides
are available.  This is the old false-choices argument: pretend there
are only two choices when there are more.  Pretend there is either DDT
or nothing.  Pretend we either must build dams or have no flood control.

The page
http://www.junkscience.com/news/sea-level-rise.html

shows an astounding flaw in reasoning: the author seems to think that
global warming is no longer an issue because one experiment showing
sea level rises was flawed.  The author must think that the only reason
scientists are worried about global warming is that one experiment.
Sad.
-- 
-- Joe Buck	http://www.synopsys.com/pubs/research/people/jbuck.html

Help stamp out Internet spam: see http://www.vix.com/spam/

Dear L. Needham Sutter County, California:

Your below post is most interesting and shows your sharp perception.  I
wish more shared your sharp perceptions.  

I have heard from a great distance that the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
also contributed to the floods.  By preventing needed maintenance on
damaged levees for the sake of the Long-Horned Elderberry Beetle.  In
this case there is room for adjustment in the ESA and also for those who
blindly act under its name displaying archaic environmentalism.

Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
-----------------------------------------------
needham@syix.com wrote:
> 
> LESSONS LEARNED BY A FLOOD AREA EVACUEE:
> 
> The article by "Friends of the River" entitled "California's Best
> Opportunity to Achieve Improved Flood Control While Restoring Wetlands &
> Wildlife Habitat" was disingenuous and misleading.  When a follow up
> post by (a self proclaimed dam engineer) suggested dams too should be
> considered as one of many viable flood control alternatives, the
> environmental elitists came out of the woodwork to hurl personal
> attacks, junk science and anything else at this person in order to
> suppress the idea of yet another dam. Whether or not people died in
> floods was just down right irrelevant; they just couldn't have cared
> less. One such poster's reply was "Move to higher ground" D-O-Y! The
> problem with elitist environmental groups is they believe "THE ENDS
> JUSTIFY THE MEANS." It's either their way or the highway and they always
> claim to own the high ground!
> 
> While they accuse farmers of having lobbyist that pour money into
> politicians pocket books, they fail to disclose how many politician's
> coffers they've filled. What hypocrites! It seems as though there's
> always someone else available for them to blame. It would be taboo for
> them to accept responsibility for any cause & effect relationship
> attributed to their own actions. For example with respect to agriculture
> & other development in flood plains, how long ago do you suppose these
> advances have been going on in the California? at least a century. The
> suggestion to move is a little LATE, and the mere idea that stopping
> further development will somehow rescind the need for flood control is
> ridiculous.
> 
> The silting of dams was yet another red herring to flood control, and
> still there are those who will continue to argue this point into
> eternity. Not to suggest that silting doesn't occur, but this was
> explained in great detail by the professionals. One example discussed
> was Folsom dam. This project is now over 40 years old which would put it
> at its near half design life point. Yet at the peak of the drought just
> several years ago when the dam was nearly empty, just a couple hundred
> yard upstream from the dam were old fences heading down to the old
> stream bed. It was amazing. However according to some, this location
> should have been buried in silt by at least a hundred feet. How is this
> explained? I would say that the professional's estimates are more
> accurate than some of these elitist would have us believe.
> 
> On another note, it was suggested that all dams kill the salmon runs.
> Yet the Nimbus Fish Hatchery has been in operation ever since the
> Folsom/Nimbus dams were built which would be nearly 20 salmon
> generations ago. Since then, there have been good years and bad years
> for the salmon, and yes I'm sure it's true that their numbers have been
> declining. But is this all the evidence needed to condemn the dams
> responsible. What about toxins in the rivers? or off coast ocean
> fishing?  and poaching?  What about the mines that are seemingly
> discovered every couple years that are spuing poisons into the rivers?
> As can be found in the California fishing regulation handbook, no one
> should eat more than 2 fish per month out of the Sacramento river
> because of mercury poison. What about that? Doesn't it hurt the salmon
> runs?
> 
> Was the original post a pre-emptive measure on the part of "Friends of
> the River" to silence California flood victim's cries for more dams?
> According to an article in the Appeal Democrat, environmental groups
> such as "The Sierra Club" and "Friends of the River" had called on its
> members (not long after the Yuba County levee breach) to begin a letter
> writing campaign to politicians and local newspaper editorials
> suggesting that structural solutions (dams) for flood control are an
> unnecessary evil. Other articles in the Appeal Democrat called on
> environmental measures as reasons why the river channels have not been
> cleared of debris and levees properly maintained. Both US Representative
> Wally Herger & California Assemblyman Bernie Richter have stated their
> concerns that a pond habitat built just 600 ft from the Yuba levee
> breach may have contributed to the flood disaster. The Army Corp of
> Engineers denies this assertion, yet Levee District 784 has filed a law
> suit over the matter. It wouldn't be the first time one agency was
> pitted against another because they were worried about a law suit!
> 
> How much junk science was presented in these elitist arguments? It
> wouldn't be the first time that the snake oil approach has been utilized
> to sell a bucket of dead fish as a cure for whatever ails ya! I used to
> think that Rush Limbaugh's claim to Environmental Wackos was just a talk
> show gimmick. Now I have to wonder, some salesmanship & some truth. That
> wouldn't be to different from the environment elitists approach now
> would it!
> 
> For more information on the connection between environmental elitist and
> junk science, go to http://www.junkscience.com.  There you will find a
> link http://www.hookup.net/~rsirvine/ which helps explain why
> environmentalist dislike the agriculture industry. This web page though
> Canadian based provides shocking information that every American needs
> to know.
> 
> L Needham
> Sutter County, California

Mark wrote:
> 
> Dear L. Needham Sutter County, California:
> 
> Your below post is most interesting and shows your sharp perception.  I
> wish more shared your sharp perceptions.
> 
> I have heard from a great distance that the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
> also contributed to the floods.  By preventing needed maintenance on
> damaged levees for the sake of the Long-Horned Elderberry Beetle.  In
> this case there is room for adjustment in the ESA and also for those who
> blindly act under its name displaying archaic environmentalism.
> 
> Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
>
Yes you heard that a levee failed due to some kind of environmental
protection.  However, this tale was started by Rep. Richard Pombo, a
true ecco-terrorist if ever there was one.  The Stocton Record reported
on the levee failures, Pombo could not document such events due to "bugs
and rodents in levees", the California Chief of the U.S.F.& W.S., Wqayne
White said that there was little substance to these charges. Several
experts on levees including people on the levee district director and
farmers in the area said that the reason the levees failed was because
there "was just too much water." 
 -----------------------------------------------
If there is junk science it is Needham, and Pombo, not the
environmentalists.  The references are there to be read if you want to
do the research.
 needham@syix.com wrote:
> >

In article <5g79gu$po@hermes.synopsys.com>,
Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.com> wrote:

[...]

>And that's completely appropriate.  Building in flood plains is stupid.
>Spending billions of dollars on engineering projects to make it safer
>to build in flood plains compounds the stupidity.  I certainly won't
>say that flood control dams are *never* appropriate, but they are an
>expensive and over-used option.  They are a big-government solution;
>usually those who attack environmentalists accuse the environmentalists
>of advocating "big government" but in the case of dams it is the reverse.

Building in a flood plain is not "stupid". But it needs to be done
correctly. Building a single story slab house of wood siding and studs,
with drywall interior isn't terribly bright. If you know it's a flood
plain.

A lot of people who didn't know they were in a flood prone area have
recently found out, largely through the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
publisher under the National Floood Insurance Program. And those maps
and the program now require that the house be built to minimize flood
damage.

And, of course, some cities are located on flood plains because in the
past they pretty much had to be. The city of Sacramento isn't going to
go away simply because it's now 1997 and modern telecommunications and
transportation no longer require living in major conurbations.

[...]

>Bizarre.  You build in a flood plain is a cause; you get flooded is an
>effect.  It is the developers that are refusing to accept responsibility.
>It is the environmentalists who are pushing responsibility in this
>particular case.

As I said, currently development in designated Special Flood Hazard
Areas must meet certain requirements to minimize flood damage. This
includes elevation of the lowest floor to above the 100-year flood
elevation.

[...]

-- 
   *********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) ***********
   * In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
   *  Until they find out he can see, then they kill him   *
   *********************************************************

needham@syix.com wrote:
> 
> LESSONS LEARNED BY A FLOOD AREA EVACUEE:
> 
> The article by "Friends of the River" entitled "California's Best
> Opportunity to Achieve Improved Flood Control While Restoring Wetlands &
> Wildlife Habitat" was disingenuous and misleading.  When a follow up
> post by (a self proclaimed dam engineer) suggested dams too should be
> considered as one of many viable flood control alternatives, the
> environmental elitists came out of the woodwork to hurl personal
> attacks, junk science and anything else at this person in order to
> suppress the idea of yet another dam. Whether or not people died in
> floods was just down right irrelevant; they just couldn't have cared
> less. One such poster's reply was "Move to higher ground" D-O-Y! The
> problem with elitist environmental groups is they believe "THE ENDS
> JUSTIFY THE MEANS." It's either their way or the highway and they always
> claim to own the high ground!

>From what I've seen of these groups postings you're absolutely right.
Why is it that this division is being encouraged? Could it be that it
suits industry to have all environmental groups branded with the same
regulationist interfering brush in order to stop the real message (ie:
wake up! the world is dying) getting through?

We get diverted into stupid arguments about rare species and it becomes
ok to kill everything else (until they too become rare) even for the
most trivial reasons. If we don't stop indulging in luxuries soon we
will all be wiped out and it will be our own fault for being not good
enough as a species to make it in the world.

Shame we are taking most of the other life with us too. But wild earth
is infinitely stronger than our arrogant leaders, and if we don't get
rid of them soon and start living properly, things will be sorted out
without our input. I don't need any experts or leaders to tell me
everything is in hand. I have eyes and nose and ears and I can see quite
clearly that it isn't. Ordinary people need to start to take
responsibility for their own lives and actions, not handing over OUR
power to a bunch of imbeciles in grey suits.
Andy
> 
> L Needham
> Sutter County, California

-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/ef/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
savage@easynet.co.uk

Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> smtp.syix.com writes:
> >The article by "Friends of the River" entitled "California's Best
> >Opportunity to Achieve Improved Flood Control While Restoring Wetlands &
> >Wildlife Habitat" was disingenuous and misleading.  When a follow up
> >post by (a self proclaimed dam engineer) suggested dams too should be
> >considered as one of many viable flood control alternatives, the
> >environmental elitists came out of the woodwork to hurl personal
> >attacks, junk science and anything else at this person in order to
> >suppress the idea of yet another dam.
> 
> Please look up the definition of "elitist".  You seem to think it is just
> a noise word, to be thrown in whenever you want.  If you think that only
> dam engineers may comment on the wisdom of dam building, then I'm afraid
> that it is you who are an elitist.

Well really the last person to ask about flood control is a dam builder.
Flood control is what happens naturally in an undamaged ecosystem.
Asking a dam builder for advice on your flood problems is like asking
asking a London Taxi driver for advice on how to get to fleet street.
The answer will be the same even if it's only a hundred yards away.

Flood control is best achieved by forests. Sensible people used to live
in flood plains because of the fertility brought down by the annual
input of new fertility. Whole ecosystems wer built on it. In our
stupidity, and to fullfill the growth needs of western style
monocultural progress we 'helped' these people to become dependant on
alien crops with lower nutritional value and no tolerance to
waterlogging.

We also destroyed the life systems upstream that tempered the flooding
and made the water last longer, causing periods of drought. All this and
more was achieved by pompous self-appointed experts who even now, after
all the death and misery they have caused, show no humility and even
have the temerity to propose yet more short-sighted 'solutions'.




> >For more information on the connection between environmental elitist and
> >junk science, go to http://www.junkscience.com.
> 
> I've looked at that site.  It is in itself junk science.  Some of their
> arguments would make a tobacco lobbyist proud.

Yep, it's complete crap.

Not arguing with Joe, just adding my twopenneth.

Andy
> -- Joe Buck     http://www.synopsys.com/pubs/research/people/jbuck.html
> 
> Help stamp out Internet spam: see http://www.vix.com/spam/

-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/ef/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
savage@easynet.co.uk

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 13:10:19 -0800, Mark <mebooker@atnet.net> wrote:

>Dear L. Needham Sutter County, California:
>
>Your below post is most interesting and shows your sharp perception.  I
>wish more shared your sharp perceptions.  
>
Not a lot perception for this community. Everyday the local paper has
something to print on "THE FLOOD OF 1997."  Of course, the newspaper
too could have been wiped out had Marysville went under!

>-----------------------------------------------
>

On 12 Mar 1997 22:08:30 GMT, jbuck@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) wrote:

>
>Please look up the definition of "elitist".  You seem to think it is just
>a noise word, to be thrown in whenever you want.  If you think that only
>dam engineers may comment on the wisdom of dam building, then I'm afraid
>that it is you who are an elitist.

American Heritage

b. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class. --e�lit"ist
adj. &  n.

Yep... I'd say it fits alright.  However since you are troubled by the
terminology, I could use my preferred diction which would have been

RADICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST........

>>Whether or not people died in
>>floods was just down right irrelevant; they just couldn't have cared
>>less. One such poster's reply was "Move to higher ground".
>
>And that's completely appropriate.  Building in flood plains is stupid.

This would truly be true stupid if development had just begun.
However the FACTS ARE that building has been going on for over a
hundred years in the greater Sacramento valley.  Communities started &
thrived here because of the ability to commute via the waterways, BUT
of course this is one REALITY you would like to dismiss.  

>
>You speak as though the environmental lobbyists have a lot of money.
>They don't.  The amount of money spent by environmental lobbies is
>miniscule compared to that spent by the agribusiness lobby, or even
>by one company (ADM, the biggest agribusiness lobbyist) alone.  It is
>a drop in the bucket.

Great if you have the inside scoop on how much money you guys have
been putting into politician's pockets, THEN SHOW ME THE MONEY and
where it went!

>
>Bizarre.  You build in a flood plain is a cause; you get flooded is an
>effect.  It is the developers that are refusing to accept responsibility.
>It is the environmentalists who are pushing responsibility in this
>particular case.

WRONG AGAIN!  Developers build where they are allowed to by local
governments.  Of course they must produce EIRs and abide by them which
is but one reason the cost of housing is so damn high.

>>and the mere idea that stopping
>>further development will somehow rescind the need for flood control is
>>ridiculous.
>
>Of course, but this is a straw man.  No one's saying that no other means
>of flood control should be attempted.
>

Good then you agree, dams are a viable alternative...


>
>>Both US Representative
>>Wally Herger & California Assemblyman Bernie Richter have stated their
>>concerns that a pond habitat built just 600 ft from the Yuba levee
>>breach may have contributed to the flood disaster.
>
>Big deal.  Where is their evidence?

At least they're looking into the possibility.  This pond habitat was
created as one part of the environmental plan for the Long-Horned
Elderberry Beetle.  It's interesting that not one of these little
critters have yet to be found.  The Fish & Game department think they
might exist, but no one has EVER seen one in YUBA or SUTTER county.
Some say this species may be related to the coastal variety.

AND THAT'S WHAT I CALL JUNK SCIENCE!!

Contact California Fish & Game Department for additional information
on this issue.


>
>How much junk science is in Herger and Richter's argument?
>

Maybe Steve Jones the attorney for RD784 can help you out here.  He's
the one who has filed the lawsuit.

L Needham
Sutter County, CA

In article <3327479A.6441@easynet.co.uk>, savage@easynet.co.uk wrote:

> Joe Buck wrote:
> > 
> > smtp.syix.com writes:
> > >The article by "Friends of the River" entitled "California's Best
> > >Opportunity to Achieve Improved Flood Control While Restoring Wetlands &
> > >Wildlife Habitat" was disingenuous and misleading.  When a follow up
> > >post by (a self proclaimed dam engineer) suggested dams too should be
> > >considered as one of many viable flood control alternatives, the
> > >environmental elitists came out of the woodwork to hurl personal
> > >attacks, junk science and anything else at this person in order to
> > >suppress the idea of yet another dam.
> > 
> > Please look up the definition of "elitist".  You seem to think it is just
> > a noise word, to be thrown in whenever you want.  If you think that only
> > dam engineers may comment on the wisdom of dam building, then I'm afraid
> > that it is you who are an elitist.
> 
> Well really the last person to ask about flood control is a dam builder.
> Flood control is what happens naturally in an undamaged ecosystem.

I wouldn't call it "control."  Although undeveloped flood plains upstream
absorb water, predicting whether one part of this plain will be flooded
given a particular precipitation event is near to impossible depending on
the geography.  LA is a case in point.  The river systems there were
created because every year the runoff would flow in a different channel. 
People exert control.  

> Asking a dam builder for advice on your flood problems is like asking
> asking a London Taxi driver for advice on how to get to fleet street.
> The answer will be the same even if it's only a hundred yards away.
> 

That's not very fair.  Many engineers who work on dams also work on other
types of projects and will apply whatever the best solution appears to
be.  Remember, these decisions of how to manage water resources are based
on many non-technical considerations.

> Flood control is best achieved by forests. Sensible people used to live
> in flood plains because of the fertility brought down by the annual
> input of new fertility. Whole ecosystems wer built on it. 

I'd like to see documentation of the society which did not take any
actions to channel the seasonal flood water to water their crops and not
their homes, particularly in locales where the seasonal flood waters did
not follow the same paths every year.

>In our
> stupidity, and to fullfill the growth needs of western style
> monocultural progress we 'helped' these people to become dependant on
> alien crops with lower nutritional value and no tolerance to
> waterlogging.
> 
> We also destroyed the life systems upstream that tempered the flooding
> and made the water last longer, causing periods of drought. All this and
> more was achieved by pompous self-appointed experts who even now, after
> all the death and misery they have caused, show no humility and even
> have the temerity to propose yet more short-sighted 'solutions'.
> 

How does water lasting longer cause drought?  Who has appointed themselves
as expert?  Are you more expert?  How do you judge this?  What actions did
any individuals take which caused death and misery?  These are strong
accusations.

David Underwood wrote:
> 
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > Dear L. Needham Sutter County, California:
> >
> > Your below post is most interesting and shows your sharp 
> > perception.  I wish more shared your sharp perceptions.
> >
> > I have heard from a great distance that the Endangered 
> > Species Act (ESA) also contributed to the floods.  By 
> > preventing needed maintenance on damaged levees for the 
> > sake of the Long-Horned Elderberry Beetle.  In this case 
> > there is room for adjustment in the ESA and also for those 
> > who blindly act under its name displaying archaic environmentalism.
> >
> > Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
> >---------------------------------------------------
> Yes you heard that a levee failed due to some kind of environmental
> protection.  However, this tale was started by Rep. Richard Pombo, 
> a true ecco-terrorist if ever there was one.  The Stocton Record 
> reported on the levee failures, Pombo could not document such 
> events due to "bugs and rodents in levees", the California Chief 
> of the U.S.F.& W.S., Wqayne White said that there was little 
> substance to these charges. Several experts on levees including 
> people on the levee district director and farmers in the area said
> that the reason the levees failed was because there "was just too 
> much water."
>  -----------------------------------------------
> If there is junk science it is Needham, and Pombo, not the
> environmentalists.  The references are there to be read if you want to
> do the research.
>  needham@syix.com wrote:
--------------------------------------------
Dear David Underwood:

I question the credibility of your reference to the U.S.F.& W.S. - I
believe that refers to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  If that is the
case the US Fish and Wildlife Service credibility is extremely suspect. 
The US Fish and Wildlife Service is well know to back their agendas with
any deception that would serve their cause.  Why they do so is not
explainable.  Perhaps they have problems facing the truth.

Mark, From the land of the Mighty Columbia!!

On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 21:44:53 -0800, David Underwood
<davidlkayp@earthlink.net> wrote:

>>
>Yes you heard that a levee failed due to some kind of environmental
>protection.  However, this tale was started by Rep. Richard Pombo, a
>true ecco-terrorist if ever there was one.  The Stocton Record reported
>on the levee failures, Pombo could not document such events due to "bugs
>and rodents in levees", the California Chief of the U.S.F.& W.S., Wqayne
>White said that there was little substance to these charges. Several
>experts on levees including people on the levee district director and
>farmers in the area said that the reason the levees failed was because
>there "was just too much water." 
> -----------------------------------------------
>If there is junk science it is Needham, and Pombo, not the
>environmentalists.  The references are there to be read if you want to
>do the research.
> needham@syix.com wrote:
>> >

D. Understood....

WRONG... WRONG... WRONG....

You should quit promoting propaganda, but I know its hard for an 
Eco-Nazis like yourself to go cold turkey. But there is HELP!

This story first broke on January 5, 1997 and was highlighted on the
front page in the special edition of the Appeal Democrat entitled
"GOING HOME."  There Steve Jones an attorney for RD784 made the
charge.  The article goes on to state that RD784 had been protesting
the 17 foot deep pond since 1995 but the Army Corp wouldn't listen.

Between the irresponsible environmentalist pushing their hair brain
ideas, the high powered Southern California water lobbyist, developers
too & the unscrupulous politicians who are always there to take the
hand-outs, the people of Sutter Yuba Counties are caught in the middle
to suffer the consequences of this batch of idiots.


Hey Understood the next time I want to keep up on current events in
Stockton, I'll look in a Marysville newspaper or maybe I should go to
the L.A. Times... Is that how it works with you guys?  

Here's a little research for you by a Yuba/Sutter area news
organization.  If you are wondering whether this news outlet have a
bias interest at stake, I suppose you could say they do just as the
Appeal Democrat would. They are both located here in the area and
could have been flooded also. So far their bias interest goes (with
respect to the 1997 flood), it has been to inform the people in their
communities of the evils that men like yourself do to keep them in
harms way!

You may not like reading the following, but it will do ya some good.
So enjoy a piece of humble pie and read the following articles:

http://www.otn.net/btb/lead3.htm

http://www.otn.net/btb/lead1.htm

Then here's an editorial for all you Environmental Wackos.  It will
give you an idea how & what the people in these parts are thinking of
your Boondoggle environmental projects!

http://www.otn.net/btb/editorial/eldewho.htm

*********************************************************

On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:31:47 +0000, "sdef!" <savage@easynet.co.uk>
wrote:


>>From what I've seen of these groups postings you're absolutely right.
>Why is it that this division is being encouraged? Could it be that it
>suits industry to have all environmental groups branded with the same
>regulationist interfering brush in order to stop the real message (ie:
>wake up! the world is dying) getting through?
>

I would hope it wouldn't have to be, but when human life is no longer
important there's a problem! Maybe hard to believe yet, I am very
supportive of RESPONSIBLE environmental measures. However, when groups
are supportive of climbing bridges (e.g. The Golden Gate), or chaining
themselves to trees etc., they sit on the Environmental Wacko side of
the bench. Right now I think it's stupid to say that dams are never
the solution. Even though the idiot dam(n) operators at Oroville
didn't start releasing the water as soon as they should have, if it
weren't for this dam both these counties would have been underwater.
The flows into Oroville on Jan. 1 were well over 300,000 cfp and
topped at about 350,000 cfp.  Releases were at peak flow of 160,000
cfp on Jan. 2 the day the levee breached.  

Thank God Oroville was there!!

L. Needham
Sutter County, CA

needham@syix.com.ns wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 21:44:53 -0800, David Underwood
> <davidlkayp@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >Yes you heard that a levee failed due to some kind of environmental
> >protection.  However, this tale was started by Rep. Richard Pombo, a
> >true ecco-terrorist if ever there was one.  The Stocton Record reported
> >on the levee failures, Pombo could not document such events due to "bugs
> >and rodents in levees", the California Chief of the U.S.F.& W.S., Wqayne
> >White said that there was little substance to these charges. Several
> >experts on levees including people on the levee district director and
> >farmers in the area said that the reason the levees failed was because
> >there "was just too much water."
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >If there is junk science it is Needham, and Pombo, not the
> >environmentalists.  The references are there to be read if you want to
> >do the research.
> > needham@syix.com wrote:
> >> >
> 
> D. Understood....
> 
> WRONG... WRONG... WRONG....
> 
> You should quit promoting propaganda, but I know its hard for an
> Eco-Nazis like yourself to go cold turkey. But there is HELP!
> 
> This story first broke on January 5, 1997 and was highlighted on the
> front page in the special edition of the Appeal Democrat entitled
> "GOING HOME."  There Steve Jones an attorney for RD784 made the
> charge.  The article goes on to state that RD784 had been protesting
> the 17 foot deep pond since 1995 but the Army Corp wouldn't listen.
> 
> Between the irresponsible environmentalist pushing their hair brain
> ideas, the high powered Southern California water lobbyist, developers
> too & the unscrupulous politicians who are always there to take the
> hand-outs, the people of Sutter Yuba Counties are caught in the middle
> to suffer the consequences of this batch of idiots.
> 
> Hey Understood the next time I want to keep up on current events in
> Stockton, I'll look in a Marysville newspaper or maybe I should go to
> the L.A. Times... Is that how it works with you guys?
> 
> Here's a little research for you by a Yuba/Sutter area news
> organization.  If you are wondering whether this news outlet have a
> bias interest at stake, I suppose you could say they do just as the
> Appeal Democrat would. They are both located here in the area and
> could have been flooded also. So far their bias interest goes (with
> respect to the 1997 flood), it has been to inform the people in their
> communities of the evils that men like yourself do to keep them in
> harms way!
> 
> You may not like reading the following, but it will do ya some good.
> So enjoy a piece of humble pie and read the following articles:
> 
> http://www.otn.net/btb/lead3.htm
> 
> http://www.otn.net/btb/lead1.htm
> 
> Then here's an editorial for all you Environmental Wackos.  It will
> give you an idea how & what the people in these parts are thinking of
> your Boondoggle environmental projects!
> 
> http://www.otn.net/btb/editorial/eldewho.htm
> 
> *********************************************************
> 
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:31:47 +0000, "sdef!" <savage@easynet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> >>From what I've seen of these groups postings you're absolutely right.
> >Why is it that this division is being encouraged? Could it be that it
> >suits industry to have all environmental groups branded with the same
> >regulationist interfering brush in order to stop the real message (ie:
> >wake up! the world is dying) getting through?
> >
> 
> I would hope it wouldn't have to be, but when human life is no longer
> important there's a problem! Maybe hard to believe yet, I am very
> supportive of RESPONSIBLE environmental measures. However, when groups
> are supportive of climbing bridges (e.g. The Golden Gate), or chaining
> themselves to trees etc., they sit on the Environmental Wacko side of
> the bench. Right now I think it's stupid to say that dams are never
> the solution. Even though the idiot dam(n) operators at Oroville
> didn't start releasing the water as soon as they should have, if it
> weren't for this dam both these counties would have been underwater.
> The flows into Oroville on Jan. 1 were well over 300,000 cfp and
> topped at about 350,000 cfp.  Releases were at peak flow of 160,000
> cfp on Jan. 2 the day the levee breached.
> 
> Thank God Oroville was there!!
> 
> L. Needham
> Sutter County, CA
Well human life might be important but people who can only deal in
insults and vague references are not worth worring about.  Your resort
to name calling only shows that you lack the decency to be considered a
human being.  You are right, the facts are there for anyone to see, but
you have to be able to read and write in order to understand them.  You
will get no further arguments from me as you are not worth answering.  I
do not deal with cowards.

Mark wrote:
> 
> David Underwood wrote:
> >
> > Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear L. Needham Sutter County, California:
> > >
> > > Your below post is most interesting and shows your sharp
> > > perception.  I wish more shared your sharp perceptions.
> > >
> > > I have heard from a great distance that the Endangered
> > > Species Act (ESA) also contributed to the floods.  By
> > > preventing needed maintenance on damaged levees for the
> > > sake of the Long-Horned Elderberry Beetle.  In this case
> > > there is room for adjustment in the ESA and also for those
> > > who blindly act under its name displaying archaic environmentalism.
> > >
> > > Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
> > >---------------------------------------------------
> > Yes you heard that a levee failed due to some kind of environmental
> > protection.  However, this tale was started by Rep. Richard Pombo,
> > a true ecco-terrorist if ever there was one.  The Stocton Record
> > reported on the levee failures, Pombo could not document such
> > events due to "bugs and rodents in levees", the California Chief
> > of the U.S.F.& W.S., Wqayne White said that there was little
> > substance to these charges. Several experts on levees including
> > people on the levee district director and farmers in the area said
> > that the reason the levees failed was because there "was just too
> > much water."
> >  -----------------------------------------------
> > If there is junk science it is Needham, and Pombo, not the
> > environmentalists.  The references are there to be read if you want to
> > do the research.
> >  needham@syix.com wrote:
> --------------------------------------------
> Dear David Underwood:
> 
> I question the credibility of your reference to the U.S.F.& W.S. - I
> believe that refers to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  If that is the
> case the US Fish and Wildlife Service credibility is extremely suspect.
> The US Fish and Wildlife Service is well know to back their agendas with
> any deception that would serve their cause.  Why they do so is not
> explainable.  Perhaps they have problems facing the truth.
> 
> Mark, From the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
O.K. you do not trust the chief, i'll give you that, however Pombo, who
is noted for his attack on the Endangered Species Act could not provide
any one who would support his contention.  Pombos chief of staff, Steve
Ding and his press Secretary Mike Hardiman referrd reporters to several
farmers and flood control experts.  Those experts, including Dante
Nomoellini a wter attorney and Alex Hidebrand president of the San
Joaquin River Flood Control Association said that the levees were well
maintained and probably broke for other reasons.  thay also said that
environmental laws do not prevent levee work but that it does make it
mor expensive.

Unfortunately I do not have time to give the full text but no
responsible parties would blame environmental laws for the levee breaks.

On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:08:56 -0800, David Underwood
<davidlkayp@earthlink.net> wrote:


>Well human life might be important but people who can only deal in
>insults and vague references are not worth worring about.  Your resort
>to name calling only shows that you lack the decency to be considered a
>human being.  You are right, the facts are there for anyone to see, but
>you have to be able to read and write in order to understand them.  You
>will get no further arguments from me as you are not worth answering.  I
>do not deal with cowards.



Typical response from an Eco-Nazi.  If you can't take the truth, then
GET THE HELL OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!

OBVIOUSLY FACTS THAT DISPUTE YOUR PARTICULAR PRECONCEIVED 
OPINION UPSET YOU.

L Needham
Sutter County, CA

David Underwood wrote:
> 
> Mark wrote:
> >
> > David Underwood wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Dear L. Needham Sutter County, California:
> > > >
> > > > Your below post is most interesting and shows your sharp
> > > > perception.  I wish more shared your sharp perceptions.
> > > >
> > > > I have heard from a great distance that the Endangered
> > > > Species Act (ESA) also contributed to the floods.  By
> > > > preventing needed maintenance on damaged levees for the
> > > > sake of the Long-Horned Elderberry Beetle.  In this case
> > > > there is room for adjustment in the ESA and also for those
> > > > who blindly act under its name displaying archaic environmentalism.
> > > >
> > > > Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
> > > >---------------------------------------------------
> > > Yes you heard that a levee failed due to some kind of environmental
> > > protection.  However, this tale was started by Rep. Richard Pombo,
> > > a true ecco-terrorist if ever there was one.  The Stocton Record
> > > reported on the levee failures, Pombo could not document such
> > > events due to "bugs and rodents in levees", the California Chief
> > > of the U.S.F.& W.S., Wqayne White said that there was little
> > > substance to these charges. Several experts on levees including
> > > people on the levee district director and farmers in the area said
> > > that the reason the levees failed was because there "was just too
> > > much water."
> > >  -----------------------------------------------
> > > If there is junk science it is Needham, and Pombo, not the
> > > environmentalists.  The references are there to be read if you want to
> > > do the research.
> > >  needham@syix.com wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Dear David Underwood:
> >
> > I question the credibility of your reference to the U.S.F.& W.S. - 
> > I believe that refers to the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  If 
> > that is the case the US Fish and Wildlife Service credibility is
> > extremely suspect.  The US Fish and Wildlife Service is well know 
> > to back their agendas with any deception that would serve their
> > cause.  Why they do so is not explainable.  Perhaps they have
> > problems facing the truth.
> >
> > Mark, From the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
>--------------------------------------------------
> O.K. you do not trust the chief, i'll give you that, however 
> Pombo, who is noted for his attack on the Endangered Species 
> Act could not provide any one who would support his contention.
> Pombos chief of staff, Steve Ding and his press Secretary Mike
> Hardiman referrd reporters to several farmers and flood control
> experts.  Those experts, including Dante Nomoellini a wter 
> attorney and Alex Hidebrand president of the San Joaquin River 
> Flood Control Association said that the levees were well 
> maintained and probably broke for other reasons.  thay also said 
> that environmental laws do not prevent levee work but that it 
> does make it mor expensive.
> 
> Unfortunately I do not have time to give the full text but no
> responsible parties would blame environmental laws for the 
> levee breaks.
-------------------------------------------------
Dear David Underwood:
I appreciate your not taking the time to try to justify the US Fish and
Wildlife.  Because the lack credibility at one level casts the lack of
credibility shadow at all levels.  The USA is subsidizing the lack of
credibility in the US Fish and Wildlife which is pervasive throughout
the agency.  

I was referring to the Portland office, you bring up some other area!

Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!

Mark wrote:
------------------------------------------
> Dear David Underwood:
> I appreciate your not taking the time to try to justify the US Fish and
> Wildlife.  Because the lack credibility at one level casts the lack of
> credibility shadow at all levels.  The USA is subsidizing the lack of
> credibility in the US Fish and Wildlife which is pervasive throughout
> the agency.
> 
> I was referring to the Portland office, you bring up some other area!
> 
> Mark, from the land of the Mighty Columbia!!
I am not sure where the distrust in the U.S.F&W comes fromas I hav not
seen any reason to do so.  But it is appearant the you have some reason
for distrusting them. As for myself, I can remember when hundreds of
thousand of ducks and geese stopped in San Francisco bay and the San
Joaquin Delta.  We caught salmon in the bay off the berkely pier. And a
few years later when I hunted in the Sierra Nevada there were herds of
mule deer up to 200 strong.  I began to notice the dicline in the deer
heards as the clearcut logging took over and the Orovill dam and Shasta
dam did in the salmon in the bay.  Filling in the wetlands reduced the
duck and geese populations to the point where a migrating flock is now a
rarity.  Clearcut logging silted up the coastal rivers and most of the
steelhead are gone.  I was an avid fisherman and hunter and I appreciate
whatever can be done to preserve what is left.  I also caught steelhead
in the creek next to our hose in Middletown but Berryessa dam stopped
that. So I am happy to see that some effort is being made to trya nd
rectify some of these losses.

sdef! wrote:
> 
> needham@syix.com.ns wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:08:56 -0800, David Underwood
> > <davidlkayp@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Well human life might be important but people who can only deal in
> > >insults and vague references are not worth worring about.  Your resort
> > >to name calling only shows that you lack the decency to be considered a
> > >human being.  You are right, the facts are there for anyone to see, but
> > >you have to be able to read and write in order to understand them.  You
> > >will get no further arguments from me as you are not worth answering.  I
> > >do not deal with cowards.
> >
> > Typical response from an Eco-Nazi.  If you can't take the truth, then
> > GET THE HELL OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY FACTS THAT DISPUTE YOUR PARTICULAR PRECONCEIVED
> > OPINION UPSET YOU.
> >
> > L Needham
> > Sutter County, CA
> 
> --
> http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/ef/earthfirst.html
> South Downs EF!,  Prior House
> 6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
> savage@easynet.co.uk
well Mr. Needham is obviously a rocket scientist and we are all a bunch
of nazis.  I kneew a real nazi once a guy named Leopold Schatzel, one of
der fuhrers finest, served in the panmzers or so he claimed.  We used to
ask him how many babies he had bayoneted.  A coward like Needham would
run form a real nazi.  but anyway you can see the paucity of his
position.  he can not engage in rational conversation, only name calling
and invectivs.  But he is the genius and we all have to fall in line or
risk being bombarded with his fine reasoned arguments, such as you have
seen.

John Lansford wrote:
> 
> "sdef!" <savage@easynet.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >The only good dam is one built by beavers. Dams are designed to
> >imprison, control and restrict a river for the benefit of an elite group
> >of humans who squander  the electricity and waste the water.
> >Dams are like blood clots and should all be destroyed. The 'flood
> >control' measures the sometimes are designed for would not be needed if
> >humans lived properly.
> >
> >Free the rivers, free the people
> >
> 
> Let's see. Since you have a computer you are definitely one of those
> "squandering" electricity. You also eat, so you are in the group that
> purchases food (at low cost, BTW) from the farmers using water from
> those dams too.
> 
> As to the statement "dams are like blood clots and should be
> destroyed", that sounds to me like you are advocating terrorism. Had
> you meant you wanted them removed you should have said so.
> "Destroying" them implies a sudden removal.
> 
> Plus, I want to know your opinion on just how humans should "live
> properly". Move out of the floodplain? Fine. Get the government to buy
> out everyone living there, but be prepared when your taxes increase to
> pay for the BILLIONS needed for this boondoggle.
> 
> Oh, I forgot. Everything is justified to preserve the rivers.
> Including mass human death and lower standards of living for the rest
> of us.
> 
> John Lansford

I agree with John!  We need to think about the consequences of what
we propose to others involved.  Most large dams were designed and 
built knowing that certain detrimental effects would be felt down
stream but society, at the time, was willing to give up those things
in return for the benefits of the dams - electricity, water supply,
irrigation for food production, recreational benefits, etc.  Flood
control (reduction is the current word) is usually only a part of
a design.  Only in a very limited number of instances is flood 
reduction the only factor in building a dam.  These dams are easy
to spot - they are dry or nearly so except for during times of 
high flows when they retain water to reduce downstream flooding.

I hope those who are against all dams didn't aren't talking 
with their mouth full of all that cheap food
that irrigation provides, or during the summer while drinking that 
water stored from the winter by those TERRIBLE dams!  Their electricity
probably comes from a more environmentally sound source - like a coal/
gas/nuclear fired power plant anyway!

Probably had either his heat or air conditioner turned on too!

Dams are not the solution to all problems.  They can prevent floods
that occur more frequently and can provide many benefits that society
has become used to. They WILL reach a point where additional flooding 
will not be reduced over natural conditions - that is a given.  Where 
that point is and when it occurs is the only design parameter there is.

If you want to see the effects of the dams on the floods of 1997 ask
the local Corps Districts.  As a part of their evaluation of the 
actions they calculate what would have happened if no flood reduction
(i.e. dams and levees) measures were in place.  It would be VERY 
enlightening.  A study on the 1993 Mississippi River flood evaluated
the effects of land use and cover on that flood.  We found that the
MOST that could be hoped for was about a 10% reduction in the flood
peak due to changing land cover practices.  That's not much.

There is also an interesting quote in the begining of what is known
as the Galloway Report (Sharing the Challenge:  Floodplain Management
into the 21st Century ISBN: 0-16-045078-0 from the US Govt. Printing
Office).  It deals with a flood on the Mississippi River in 1605.  

Many now take for granted the large supplies of
clean water that we have access to and don't even have a clue of the 
problems that led to the development of these dams.  Sacramento has
a choice.  They can either do something to further reduce the 
risk of flooding, wait for the next flood to come, or move.  I'm 
betting they won't move (at least not until after water is 30' feet deep
in their living room) and if some solution can't be found, the only 
option left is to wait for the next flood - the one that goes over
the levees.

I hope we can find some common ground and work towards a solution 
rather than poking each other in the eye with a sharp stick so
we can feel better about what we believe!

I'll probably catch hell from someone - but I guess that's life!
 
-- 
Gary E. Freeman, Phd, PE        freeman@hl.wes.army.mil
CEWES-HW-R                      http://hlnet.wes.army.mil/staff/freeman
3909 Halls Ferry Rd.		Any opinions are my own.  They may or 
Waterways Experiment Station    or may not be shared by the US Army   
Vicksburg, MS  39180	        Corps of Engineers - or by anyone else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Gary E. Freeman wrote:
> 
> 
> If you want to see the effects of the dams on the floods of 1997 ask
> the local Corps Districts.  As a part of their evaluation of the
> actions they calculate what would have happened if no flood reduction
> (i.e. dams and levees) measures were in place.  It would be VERY
> enlightening.  A study on the 1993 Mississippi River flood evaluated
> the effects of land use and cover on that flood.  We found that the
> MOST that could be hoped for was about a 10% reduction in the flood
> peak due to changing land cover practices.  That's not much.
> 
>

Gary,

How woudl the damage patterns have been different if there were no 
levees?  I am learning about SWM and flooding for various reasons and 
have the feeling I know enought to be dangerous.gr  Would the lack of 
levees have produced a lower velocity, longer flooding but at a less 
destructive level, perhaps not filled so much of the flood plain?  
Especially if combined with better land use palnning in headwaters 
areas?

  Thanks,  Todd

The only good dam is one built by beavers. Dams are designed to
imprison, control and restrict a river for the benefit of an elite group
of humans who squander  the electricity and waste the water. 
Dams are like blood clots and should all be destroyed. The 'flood
control' measures the sometimes are designed for would not be needed if
humans lived properly.

Free the rivers, free the people

Andy

needham@syix.com.ns wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 21:44:53 -0800, David Underwood
> <davidlkayp@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >>
> >Yes you heard that a levee failed due to some kind of environmental
> >protection.  However, this tale was started by Rep. Richard Pombo, a
> >true ecco-terrorist if ever there was one.  The Stocton Record reported
> >on the levee failures, Pombo could not document such events due to "bugs
> >and rodents in levees", the California Chief of the U.S.F.& W.S., Wqayne
> >White said that there was little substance to these charges. Several
> >experts on levees including people on the levee district director and
> >farmers in the area said that the reason the levees failed was because
> >there "was just too much water."
> > -----------------------------------------------
> >If there is junk science it is Needham, and Pombo, not the
> >environmentalists.  The references are there to be read if you want to
> >do the research.
> > needham@syix.com wrote:
> >> >
> 
> D. Understood....
> 
> WRONG... WRONG... WRONG....
> 
> You should quit promoting propaganda, but I know its hard for an
> Eco-Nazis like yourself to go cold turkey. But there is HELP!
> 
> This story first broke on January 5, 1997 and was highlighted on the
> front page in the special edition of the Appeal Democrat entitled
> "GOING HOME."  There Steve Jones an attorney for RD784 made the
> charge.  The article goes on to state that RD784 had been protesting
> the 17 foot deep pond since 1995 but the Army Corp wouldn't listen.
> 
> Between the irresponsible environmentalist pushing their hair brain
> ideas, the high powered Southern California water lobbyist, developers
> too & the unscrupulous politicians who are always there to take the
> hand-outs, the people of Sutter Yuba Counties are caught in the middle
> to suffer the consequences of this batch of idiots.
> 
> Hey Understood the next time I want to keep up on current events in
> Stockton, I'll look in a Marysville newspaper or maybe I should go to
> the L.A. Times... Is that how it works with you guys?
> 
> Here's a little research for you by a Yuba/Sutter area news
> organization.  If you are wondering whether this news outlet have a
> bias interest at stake, I suppose you could say they do just as the
> Appeal Democrat would. They are both located here in the area and
> could have been flooded also. So far their bias interest goes (with
> respect to the 1997 flood), it has been to inform the people in their
> communities of the evils that men like yourself do to keep them in
> harms way!
> 
> You may not like reading the following, but it will do ya some good.
> So enjoy a piece of humble pie and read the following articles:
> 
> http://www.otn.net/btb/lead3.htm
> 
> http://www.otn.net/btb/lead1.htm
> 
> Then here's an editorial for all you Environmental Wackos.  It will
> give you an idea how & what the people in these parts are thinking of
> your Boondoggle environmental projects!
> 
> http://www.otn.net/btb/editorial/eldewho.htm
> 
> *********************************************************
> 
> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:31:47 +0000, "sdef!" <savage@easynet.co.uk>
> wrote:
> 
> >>From what I've seen of these groups postings you're absolutely right.
> >Why is it that this division is being encouraged? Could it be that it
> >suits industry to have all environmental groups branded with the same
> >regulationist interfering brush in order to stop the real message (ie:
> >wake up! the world is dying) getting through?
> >
> 
> I would hope it wouldn't have to be, but when human life is no longer
> important there's a problem! Maybe hard to believe yet, I am very
> supportive of RESPONSIBLE environmental measures. However, when groups
> are supportive of climbing bridges (e.g. The Golden Gate), or chaining
> themselves to trees etc., they sit on the Environmental Wacko side of
> the bench. Right now I think it's stupid to say that dams are never
> the solution. Even though the idiot dam(n) operators at Oroville
> didn't start releasing the water as soon as they should have, if it
> weren't for this dam both these counties would have been underwater.
> The flows into Oroville on Jan. 1 were well over 300,000 cfp and
> topped at about 350,000 cfp.  Releases were at peak flow of 160,000
> cfp on Jan. 2 the day the levee breached.
> 
> Thank God Oroville was there!!
> 
> L. Needham
> Sutter County, CA

-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/ef/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
savage@easynet.co.uk

needham@syix.com.ns wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 14 Mar 1997 22:08:56 -0800, David Underwood
> <davidlkayp@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> >Well human life might be important but people who can only deal in
> >insults and vague references are not worth worring about.  Your resort
> >to name calling only shows that you lack the decency to be considered a
> >human being.  You are right, the facts are there for anyone to see, but
> >you have to be able to read and write in order to understand them.  You
> >will get no further arguments from me as you are not worth answering.  I
> >do not deal with cowards.
> 
> Typical response from an Eco-Nazi.  If you can't take the truth, then
> GET THE HELL OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!
> 
> OBVIOUSLY FACTS THAT DISPUTE YOUR PARTICULAR PRECONCEIVED
> OPINION UPSET YOU.
> 
> L Needham
> Sutter County, CA

-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/ef/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
savage@easynet.co.uk

Mark wrote:
> 
> David Underwood wrote:
> >
> > Mark wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear L. Needham Sutter County, California:
> > >
> > > Your below post is most interesting and shows your sharp
> > > perception.  I wish more shared your sharp perceptions.
> > >
> > > I have heard from a great distance that the Endangered
> > > Species Act (ESA) also contributed to the floods.  By
> > > preventing needed maintenance on damaged levees for the
> > > sake of the Long-Horned Elderberry Beetle.  In this case
> > > there is room for adjustment in the ESA and also for those
> > > who blindly act under its name displaying archaic environmentalism.
> > >
The logic of 'endangered species' is a sacred cow among
environmentalists. So much so that most fail to realise that it fits
well the agenda of the corporate beast that is destroying our home. With
the obsession with inventories of species we blind ourselves to the true
scale of the destruction that is going on to provide the rich world with
its excessive consumption.

It will be quite possible to wipe out 90% of life on earth whilst still
satisfying the expert environmentalists that their inventories are not
being depleted. This cold, callous language of the economists has
removed any sense of worth from life on earth as anything other than a
commodity. It's fine to kill millions of plants and animals to build a
road (for example) so people can scurry frantically from slave camp a to
slave camp b more efficiently, so long as they are not members of
species the experts have noticed are endangered.

We are talking about living beings here, not stock on a supermarket
shelf. 
Andy
-- 
http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/ef/earthfirst.html
South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
savage@easynet.co.uk

In article <332C97DC.2333@easynet.co.uk>, sdef! <savage@easynet.co.uk> wrote:

>The logic of 'endangered species' is a sacred cow among
>environmentalists. So much so that most fail to realise that it fits
>well the agenda of the corporate beast that is destroying our home. With
>the obsession with inventories of species we blind ourselves to the true
>scale of the destruction that is going on to provide the rich world with
>its excessive consumption.

I'd like you to try and prove your assertion that *most* fail to realize
that preservation of endangered species is just a minor part of the
conservation problem.

Endangered species get so much press attention in the US in part because
protection of a few of them has caused economic dislocation of certain
segments of industry.  Most endangered species protection efforts involve
species which most folks have never heard of.

And most conservation organizations, at least here in the US, concentrate
largely on the protection of habitat.  Pressing for better management
of grazing and timber harvesting on federal lands intersects with the
protection of endangered species to some degree, but not by much.  This
is one reason why, for instance, so much effort is put into ensuring
that sufficient tracts of our Alaskan lands - much less developed than
in the rest of the country - is protected.  The notion is to avoid
having Alaskan wildlife become endangered as so many populations in the
lower 48 have.

>It will be quite possible to wipe out 90% of life on earth whilst still
>satisfying the expert environmentalists that their inventories are not
>being depleted.

Not at all true.  I have no idea where you get this notion from, but
it's false.

Perhaps the priority given endangered species confuses you.  When I'm
sick, I treat my illness, but this doesn't mean I lose sight of the
fact that my lifespan will most likely be largely determined by my
overall lifestyle, not the cold I currently have (I really do have
one, too!)

Likewise, conservationists realize that losing a species is forever,
as the saying goes.  Often preventing that loss required immediate
intervention.  That doesn't mean that conservationists lose sight
of the larger picture while doing so, though.

>This cold, callous language of the economists has
>removed any sense of worth from life on earth as anything other than a
>commodity. It's fine to kill millions of plants and animals to build a
>road (for example) so people can scurry frantically from slave camp a to
>slave camp b more efficiently, so long as they are not members of
>species the experts have noticed are endangered.

You aren't really familiar with conservation laws in the US, are you?

Perhaps what you say is true elsewhere, but not here.  Now, getting
those laws enforced is another issue altogether, but the fact that
conservationists often lose these battles doesn't mean they're not
fought, and certainly doesn't mean they're forgotten!

-- 

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
  Nature photos, on-line guides, at (NEW) http://donb.photo.net

"sdef!" <savage@easynet.co.uk> wrote:

>The only good dam is one built by beavers. Dams are designed to
>imprison, control and restrict a river for the benefit of an elite group
>of humans who squander  the electricity and waste the water. 
>Dams are like blood clots and should all be destroyed. The 'flood
>control' measures the sometimes are designed for would not be needed if
>humans lived properly.
>
>Free the rivers, free the people
>

Let's see. Since you have a computer you are definitely one of those
"squandering" electricity. You also eat, so you are in the group that
purchases food (at low cost, BTW) from the farmers using water from
those dams too. 

As to the statement "dams are like blood clots and should be
destroyed", that sounds to me like you are advocating terrorism. Had
you meant you wanted them removed you should have said so.
"Destroying" them implies a sudden removal.

Plus, I want to know your opinion on just how humans should "live
properly". Move out of the floodplain? Fine. Get the government to buy
out everyone living there, but be prepared when your taxes increase to
pay for the BILLIONS needed for this boondoggle.

Oh, I forgot. Everything is justified to preserve the rivers.
Including mass human death and lower standards of living for the rest
of us.

John Lansford

Does this include dams for water supply reservoirs?

On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 00:49:21 +0000, "sdef!" <savage@easynet.co.uk>
wrote:

>The only good dam is one built by beavers. Dams are designed to
>imprison, control and restrict a river for the benefit of an elite group
>of humans who squander  the electricity and waste the water. 
>Dams are like blood clots and should all be destroyed. The 'flood
>control' measures the sometimes are designed for would not be needed if
>humans lived properly.
>
>Free the rivers, free the people
>
>Andy
>
>needham@syix.com.ns wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, 12 Mar 1997 21:44:53 -0800, David Underwood
>> <davidlkayp@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >>
>> >Yes you heard that a levee failed due to some kind of environmental
>> >protection.  However, this tale was started by Rep. Richard Pombo, a
>> >true ecco-terrorist if ever there was one.  The Stocton Record reported
>> >on the levee failures, Pombo could not document such events due to "bugs
>> >and rodents in levees", the California Chief of the U.S.F.& W.S., Wqayne
>> >White said that there was little substance to these charges. Several
>> >experts on levees including people on the levee district director and
>> >farmers in the area said that the reason the levees failed was because
>> >there "was just too much water."
>> > -----------------------------------------------
>> >If there is junk science it is Needham, and Pombo, not the
>> >environmentalists.  The references are there to be read if you want to
>> >do the research.
>> > needham@syix.com wrote:
>> >> >
>> 
>> D. Understood....
>> 
>> WRONG... WRONG... WRONG....
>> 
>> You should quit promoting propaganda, but I know its hard for an
>> Eco-Nazis like yourself to go cold turkey. But there is HELP!
>> 
>> This story first broke on January 5, 1997 and was highlighted on the
>> front page in the special edition of the Appeal Democrat entitled
>> "GOING HOME."  There Steve Jones an attorney for RD784 made the
>> charge.  The article goes on to state that RD784 had been protesting
>> the 17 foot deep pond since 1995 but the Army Corp wouldn't listen.
>> 
>> Between the irresponsible environmentalist pushing their hair brain
>> ideas, the high powered Southern California water lobbyist, developers
>> too & the unscrupulous politicians who are always there to take the
>> hand-outs, the people of Sutter Yuba Counties are caught in the middle
>> to suffer the consequences of this batch of idiots.
>> 
>> Hey Understood the next time I want to keep up on current events in
>> Stockton, I'll look in a Marysville newspaper or maybe I should go to
>> the L.A. Times... Is that how it works with you guys?
>> 
>> Here's a little research for you by a Yuba/Sutter area news
>> organization.  If you are wondering whether this news outlet have a
>> bias interest at stake, I suppose you could say they do just as the
>> Appeal Democrat would. They are both located here in the area and
>> could have been flooded also. So far their bias interest goes (with
>> respect to the 1997 flood), it has been to inform the people in their
>> communities of the evils that men like yourself do to keep them in
>> harms way!
>> 
>> You may not like reading the following, but it will do ya some good.
>> So enjoy a piece of humble pie and read the following articles:
>> 
>> http://www.otn.net/btb/lead3.htm
>> 
>> http://www.otn.net/btb/lead1.htm
>> 
>> Then here's an editorial for all you Environmental Wackos.  It will
>> give you an idea how & what the people in these parts are thinking of
>> your Boondoggle environmental projects!
>> 
>> http://www.otn.net/btb/editorial/eldewho.htm
>> 
>> *********************************************************
>> 
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 1997 00:31:47 +0000, "sdef!" <savage@easynet.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >>From what I've seen of these groups postings you're absolutely right.
>> >Why is it that this division is being encouraged? Could it be that it
>> >suits industry to have all environmental groups branded with the same
>> >regulationist interfering brush in order to stop the real message (ie:
>> >wake up! the world is dying) getting through?
>> >
>> 
>> I would hope it wouldn't have to be, but when human life is no longer
>> important there's a problem! Maybe hard to believe yet, I am very
>> supportive of RESPONSIBLE environmental measures. However, when groups
>> are supportive of climbing bridges (e.g. The Golden Gate), or chaining
>> themselves to trees etc., they sit on the Environmental Wacko side of
>> the bench. Right now I think it's stupid to say that dams are never
>> the solution. Even though the idiot dam(n) operators at Oroville
>> didn't start releasing the water as soon as they should have, if it
>> weren't for this dam both these counties would have been underwater.
>> The flows into Oroville on Jan. 1 were well over 300,000 cfp and
>> topped at about 350,000 cfp.  Releases were at peak flow of 160,000
>> cfp on Jan. 2 the day the levee breached.
>> 
>> Thank God Oroville was there!!
>> 
>> L. Needham
>> Sutter County, CA
>
>-- 
>http://www.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/campaigns/ef/earthfirst.html
>South Downs EF!,  Prior House      
>6, Tilbury Place, Brighton BN2 2GY,  UK
>savage@easynet.co.uk

Leo J. Hetling
hetlil@rpi.edu

I'm not sure which thread, or which newsgroups, to post to, but here
goes!

I seem to recall that Penny's original post (which has long since
scrolled
off my server) mentioned *WHOLE BASIN PLANNING*.  What this means is
that
you have to get ALL the "stake holders" in the watershed involved, or
at least represented.  Then you begin a long journey towards consensus
-- on
what the problem(s) are, what resources are available, and so on.

Stake holders includes land owners, government agencies (at least those
with
enough budget), conservation groups, scientists, engineers (!),
recreationists,
timber rights holders, mineral rights holders, fishermen, and so on.

The result of all this is to develop policies.  That is, what do we
(stake
holders) want and haw are we going to go about getting it.  Dams or not
dams,
where and how big or small, logging practices, time tables, the whole
picture.

There has been some experience with this approach, and surprisingly
enough
it works pretty well.  In spite of some vitriol, I think that pretty
much
everyone that's contributed to these threads would be able to contribute
to
such a process.  This is the opportunity.

I hope my "reply to:" address is sufficiently munged to discourage the
automatic spammers!

Thanks to all,
Stuart

...................................................
Stuart R Dole, Hamilton Software at Hewlett-Packard
707-577-5978                          srd@sr.hp.com
...................................................

Todd M. Bolton wrote:
> 
> Gary E. Freeman wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you want to see the effects of the dams on the floods of 1997 ask
> > the local Corps Districts.  As a part of their evaluation of the
> > actions they calculate what would have happened if no flood reduction
> > (i.e. dams and levees) measures were in place.  It would be VERY
> > enlightening.  A study on the 1993 Mississippi River flood evaluated
> > the effects of land use and cover on that flood.  We found that the
> > MOST that could be hoped for was about a 10% reduction in the flood
> > peak due to changing land cover practices.  That's not much.
> >
> >
> 
> Gary,
> 
> How woudl the damage patterns have been different if there were no
> levees?  I am learning about SWM and flooding for various reasons and
> have the feeling I know enought to be dangerous.gr  Would the lack of
> levees have produced a lower velocity, longer flooding but at a less
> destructive level, perhaps not filled so much of the flood plain?
> Especially if combined with better land use palnning in headwaters
> areas?
> 
>   Thanks,  Todd

First I should note that the 10% figure was based on the whole basin.
The numbers for some of the basins were a little higher but we felt
like a realistic figure was probably more like 5% with 10% being the
upper limit.
 
Now about levees:

Our study based on the portion of the Mississippi River from Hannibal,
Missouri to Cairo Illinois (300+ River Miles) showed that for the 1993
flood the levees had little effect.  Part of the reason was that most
of the levees failed.   We looked at a scenario where none of the 
levees failed and found that the maximum increase in water surface, 
for this reach was 2 feet out of approximately a 20-30 foot depth above
flood stage.  For an option where the levees were removed the lowering
of stage varied depending on what was assumed for the 
roughness value of the floodplain that replaced the current agricultural
lands.  In the midwest the floods correspond to the farming season, 
unlike California where the floods come during the winter, so land 
use would change in the floodplain to something other than current uses.

The reduction in flood depths for a no levee scenario varied from 1.1
feet to 7-10 feet in an area where the floodplain was several miles
wide.  Even in the area with a 7-10 foot reduction in stage the flood
waters were 10+ feet deep and only fringe areas would be unflooded.
Nearly all, if not all, areas that were damaged would still be damaged
with the levees removed.  

The follow on study by the Corps looked at the whole Upper Mississippi
River Basin (much larger than any basin in California or the West)
and found that the no levee failure option would have increased flood
heights by up to 6 feet (6 on top of about 20 feet as occured) - a 
significant increase.

It is true that levees raise the velocity in the channel but probably 
not by an extreme amount since most of the conveyance is in the channel
anyway.
A lot will depend on how close the levees are to the banks of the 
river and how much higher the levees raise water surface elevations.
The river bed can also change during high flows, scouring down during 
the high flows and refilling when the water drops, depending on the 
type of bed materials (sands especially).

The areas around Sacramento with the bypasses are an excellent idea
for incorporation into other areas where the floods occur during the 
winter and not during the growing season.  This allows the flood
waters to spread out, keeps flood depths lower but can create 
sediment problems in the main channel due to bypassing water but not
sediment.  

-- 
Gary E. Freeman                 freeman@hl.wes.army.mil
CEWES-HW-R                      http://hlnet.wes.army.mil/staff/freeman
3909 Halls Ferry Rd.		Any opinions are my own.  They may or 
Waterways Experiment Station    or may not be shared by the US Army   
Vicksburg, MS  39180	        Corps of Engineers - or by anyone else.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

> > Typical response from an Eco-Nazi.  If you can't take the truth, then
> > GET THE HELL OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!
> >
> > OBVIOUSLY FACTS THAT DISPUTE YOUR PARTICULAR PRECONCEIVED
> > OPINION UPSET YOU.
> >
> > L Needham
> > Sutter County, CA
>
I rarely get involved in news group conversations, but this message 
from Mr. Needham bothered me.

Mr. Needham.  I have blood relatives that fought (and died) in Germany 
during World War II and I must say that I resent your use of the 
phrase "eco-nazi"  It is insulting to try and compare environmentally 
concerned individuals to genocidic murderers.   You need to go to your 
local library and read �My Fight� by Hitler and see the choice words 
he has for �non-germanic� peoples then maybe you would tone down your 
rhetoric.

LLP
El Dorado County (USA)

Gary E. Freeman wrote:
> 
> 
> First I should note that the 10% figure was based on the whole basin.
> The numbers for some of the basins were a little higher but we felt
> like a realistic figure was probably more like 5% with 10% being the
> upper limit.
> 
> Now about levees:
> 
> Our study based on the portion of the Mississippi River from Hannibal,
> Missouri to Cairo Illinois (300+ River Miles) showed that for the 1993
> flood the levees had little effect.  Part of the reason was that most
> of the levees failed.   We looked at a scenario where none of the
> levees failed and found that the maximum increase in water surface,
> for this reach was 2 feet out of approximately a 20-30 foot depth above
> flood stage.  For an option where the levees were removed the lowering
> of stage varied depending on what was assumed for the
> roughness value of the floodplain that replaced the current agricultural
> lands.  In the midwest the floods correspond to the farming season,
> unlike California where the floods come during the winter, so land
> use would change in the floodplain to something other than current uses.
> 
> The reduction in flood depths for a no levee scenario varied from 1.1
> feet to 7-10 feet in an area where the floodplain was several miles
> wide.  Even in the area with a 7-10 foot reduction in stage the flood
> waters were 10+ feet deep and only fringe areas would be unflooded.
> Nearly all, if not all, areas that were damaged would still be damaged
> with the levees removed.
> 
> The follow on study by the Corps looked at the whole Upper Mississippi
> River Basin (much larger than any basin in California or the West)
> and found that the no levee failure option would have increased flood
> heights by up to 6 feet (6 on top of about 20 feet as occured) - a
> significant increase.
> 

I don't remember, if I ever heard, what magnitude those floods were considered to be.  
If those flows represented a 50 year event how much less damage would be caused in the 
floodplain by a ten year?  

What I am trying to suggest is that homes and structures need full time permanent 
protection from flooding, above the 100 yr line.  But perhaps ag fields, and related 
structures, could be left in a gamblers position of being suceptible to the 25 year 
event?  I know the area affected would change depending on the topo of the floodplain. 
 Was/is this looked into with regard to the rebuilding of levees?  What % of the flood 
plain is protected from the 25 year, 4%, event?

Stuart Dole wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure which thread, or which newsgroups, to post to, but here
> goes!
> 
> I seem to recall that Penny's original post (which has long since
> scrolled
> off my server) mentioned *WHOLE BASIN PLANNING*.  What this means is
> that
> you have to get ALL the "stake holders" in the watershed involved, or
> at least represented.  Then you begin a long journey towards consensus
> -- on
> what the problem(s) are, what resources are available, and so on.
> 
> Stake holders includes land owners, government agencies (at least those
> with
> enough budget), conservation groups, scientists, engineers (!),
> recreationists,
> timber rights holders, mineral rights holders, fishermen, and so on.
> 
> The result of all this is to develop policies.  That is, what do we
> (stake
> holders) want and haw are we going to go about getting it.  Dams or not
> dams,
> where and how big or small, logging practices, time tables, the whole
> picture.
> 
> There has been some experience with this approach, and surprisingly
> enough
> it works pretty well.  In spite of some vitriol, I think that pretty
> much
> everyone that's contributed to these threads would be able to contribute
> to
> such a process.  This is the opportunity.
> 
> I hope my "reply to:" address is sufficiently munged to discourage the
> automatic spammers!
> 
> Thanks to all,
> Stuart
> 
> ...................................................
> Stuart R Dole, Hamilton Software at Hewlett-Packard
> 707-577-5978                          srd@sr.hp.com
> ...................................................
Glad to see some thought put into this thread.  Some of us do not
believe that more dams are the answer to the recent flooding problems. 
My personal reasons are because I have seen the decline in everytginf
form salmon (which I caught in SF bay whin I was a boy the the decline
in forests, and the resulting decline in hunting and fishing.  I
mentioned before that that we had stellhead in the creek next to our
house in Middletown,  the Berryessa dam stopped that.  The loss of the
salmon and steelhead in the Trinity watershed c
due to the Claire Engle dam, and the constant flooding in the delta for
as lon as anyone can remember.  The delta is a prime example of public
mony used to benefit a few.  Friant dam which was built with taxpayer
money and interst free loans, provides below cost water to some of the
biggest corporate farms in the world,  The Boswell's being a p[rime
example.  Any way if some one wants your email address all they have to
do is look up your ip address.  most of us will stick to the news group
and respect the privacy of your personal account.