🚀 go-pugleaf

Ralph Finch wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>                                  Statement of
>                           David N. Kennedy, Director
>                         Department of Water Resources
>                              State of California
>                                   Before the
>                             House Subcommittee on
>                        Water Resources and Environment
>                               February 28, 1996

Please note the date of this presentation, it will become important
later in the discussion.

> <snip>
> 2. OVERTOPPING THE LEVEES IS THE MAJOR RISK
>           A large storm would put more water into the system than Folsom
>           Reservoir and the downstream channel could handle.

This is probably why the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers thinks
upgrading Folsom dam and the existing levees would be a reasonable 
solution.

> <snip> 
> 3. CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF LIFE AND BILLIONS IN PROPERTY DAMAGE 
>    WOULD RESULT FROM LEVEE FAILURE

Gee, there are those pesky levees which need upgrading again.

> <snip>
> The central question before you today is not whether Sacramento needs
> significantly higher flood protection as soon as possible, but rather 
> "What is the best means to achieve it?" After ten years of study by
> federal, State and local agencies, the State of California has concluded
> that the solution is to build a flood detention dam, which will provide
> 500-year protection for the area's residents and property.

Read this statement carefully.  After ten years of studies
NONE of the federal agencies have stated that a new dam 
is "the" solution.  They just studied it.  The State of California
has reached its own, independent conclusions while casting aside
other viable alternatives.

> <snip>
> This recommendation makes the most sense from the perspectives 
> of public safety, cost effectiveness, and environmental 
> considerations for the entire watershed.

Once again, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has stated that by upgrading
the existing Folsom Dam and American River levees at a cost far
less than the Auburn Dam, Sacramento can protect itself "against
the most severe combination of meteorological and hydrological
conditions reasonably characteristic of the region."

> <snip>
> In the remainder of my testimony today, I will briefly describe 
> what we have been doing within the Sacramento region to address 
> the flood threat -- particularly during the four years since our 
> previous attempt to obtain authorization for a flood control project.
> I will also discuss the reasons for selecting the detention dam as 
> the nonfederal sponsors' preferred plan; explain why our 
> recommendation changed from the 200-year dry dam in 1992 to the 
> 500-year dry dam; compare the proposed project to other flood control
> projects, both existing and under construction; and relate to the 
> recommended plan "lessons learned" from the 1993 Midwest floods, 
> the 1995 California floods, and the recent flooding in Oregon. 
> Before going further, however, it is necessary to provide some 
> background information.

Here the date of the presentation comes into play.  All of the
examples and testimony presented are based on a *dry* dam proposal
(which, in all fairness, was the stated objective at the time that
this presentation was made).  However, as of March 14, 1996 it was 
revealed that the dam was not to be for flood control only, 
but rather a stageable, multi-purpose project.  This significantly
alters the economic and environmental evaluations presented.

> <snip>
> The Corps' economic analyses show the Detention Dam Plan 
> yields the maximum net economic benefit of all alternatives.
> It consequently was designated by the Corps as the National 
> Economic Development plan. The nonfederal cost-sharing 
> sponsors (SAFCA Board and The Reclamation Board) have 
> likewise identified the Detention Dam Plan as the locally 
> preferred plan because:
>     o The Detention Dam Plan significantly reduces the flood 
>       risk in Sacramento to a level commensurate with other 
>       large cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City.
>     o It is the most cost effective and provides the highest 
>       level of economic benefit.

This might be true *if* the dam was dry.  However, with a
multi-purpose dam, there will be economic losses to the region
in terms of recreation and tourism which have not been calculated
into this "dry" dam analysis (of course, any federally funded
project *would* be most cost effective for local entities who are
looking to shift the burden).

>     o It can pass the Standard Project Flood (recognized as 
>       the standard for protection of urban areas, approximately 
>       a 225-year event on the American River) with about 95 
>       percent reliability (as opposed to about 63 percent 
>       reliability for the Stepped Release Plan).
>     o It provides a high level of protection without additional 
>       dependence on the levee system, and thus is considered 
>       the safest and most reliable of the three alternatives.
>     o It minimizes environmental impacts both upstream and 
>       downstream of the dam.

Once again, these estimates are based on a dam which is used
solely for flood control.  However, the reliability factor
drops with a multi-purpose project.  Water stored behind the
dam for hydroelectric generation, irrigation and development
will reduce the dam's flood buffering capacity.  

For the same reason, reliance on levees may not be significantly 
reduced.

Environmental assessments based on a "dry" dam proposal cannot
be directly applied to a multi-purpose project.

> <snip>
> This new analysis led the Corps, the State, and SAFCA to conclude 
> that the Detention Dam is the optimum plan for providing flood 
> protection.

That's interesting information.  But a detention dam is not what
is being proposed at this point.

Nothing in this presentation addresses concerns raised
by U.S. Geological Service regarding seismic activity behind
a multi-purpose Auburn Dam project.  Nor does it address the 
multi-purpose dam's environmental impacts which the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service and the Environmental Protection Agency 
have described as "unmitigable."

Although the State of California has said that it will pick
up its share of the tab for a multi-purpose Auburn Dam, 
nobody is explaining how our already strained coffers will 
support this added burden.  Furthermore, a National 
Academy of Sciences report released in 1995 suggests that
federal funding of flood control measures for Sacramento
is simply inappropriate.  "[B]enefits from any American River 
project are not widespread and the (local flood district) by 
national standards has a significant ability to pay." 

-- 
Keith G. Wagner             ----------------------------

mailto:keithw@tidepool.com    "Visualize Whirled Peas"
mailto:kgw@axe.humboldt.edu           
                            ----------------------------
         
           http://www.tidepool.com/environment/