🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ptrjd$jpd@mark.ucdavis.edu> ez059768@rocky.ucdavis.edu (Brett Valle) writes:

   Also, studies about 
   large dams have shown STATISTICALLY to speed up the rate of recurrence 
   faults under large reservoirs.

Hey, good deal.  Lots of little faults, instead of a single big one.

   Both the scientists and engineers that 
   have studied the underlying geology agree that displacement will take 
   place at the dam site, they just do not agree on how much.  The whole 
   problem with Auburn is that the data for either side is ambiguous, so 
   taking such a serious gamble with such an expensive dam does not show 
   good judgment.  
 
While both the hydrology studies, and the earthquake studies, are not
a deterministic science, hydrology is much more mature than
seismology. For Sacto to have comparable flood protection as other
similar metro areas, some kind of increased flood storage is
necessary. That's why the expandable dry dam proposed is a reasonable
compromise: it takes care of the hydrology, while deferring until
later the seismology issue.

-- 
"Nada burra la chamaca." A.G.
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer or news host.
rfinch@toe.cs.berkeley.edu