🚀 go-pugleaf

Ralph Finch (rfinch@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU) wrote:
: 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.

Ralph, you make no sense here.  Faults do not work as "little ones" in a 
particular location, and "big ones" elsewhere.  They interconnect and 
exert and remove pressure from each other.  Studies (with "lots of data") 
predict an earthquake near the dam site at M 6.5 -7.0, which would 
categorize it as a "major" quake, even though it might be on a minor 
("little") fault.  A large reservoir would only increase (not delay) the 
natural time for the earthquake.
 
:    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.
: 
Yes and no.  Hydrology is only "more" mature in that predictions are more 
accurate.  Even then, studies about floodplains are relatively new and 
largely incomplete.  The whole basis for the Sacramento floodplain uses 
"speculative" data - many scientists feel these studies overestimate the 
size of the floodplain.  
Unfortunately, your compromise of an "expandable dry dam" does not defer 
the seismology issue.  From the very beginning, Doolittle said he would 
use the "flood control" (dry) dam to covince Congress of essential 
funding, then convert that dam into a huge, permanent reservoir.  Once 
the first dam exists, the permanent reservoir will not be far behind.  
So by even accepting the first dam, we guarantee future problems with 
both the "seismology issue" and a huge reservoir.  Doolittle uses the 
same line of reasoning in selling the dam the Congress, but fortunately 
most of them realize the inherent dangers of the dam.  Too bad you don't.
Brett