🚀 go-pugleaf

In article, rfinch@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Ralph Finch) wrote:
>
>I'm definitely biased against misinformed, callous, selfish, and
>shallow thought processes.

Huh?  Sounds like ralph is biased against himself......
>
>I tend to agree. But the facts around Sacramento are: you've already
>got several hundred thousand people in the immediate flood plain.  Too
>damn bad for them?  The ultimate flood plain in California (no dams)
>is most of the Central Valley, from say Red Bluff to past Fresno.
>Shall we move all of them out eventually?
>
The people currently living in Sacramento can be protected against all but the 
most extreme storm event/flooding circumstances for half the cost of the Big 
Auburn Dam (BAD), without building the BAD.  What BAD will really due is allow 
developers to build in areas which are now in very flood prone areas.  So then 
even with the BAD the new housing will be in areas that will flood during a 
100-year storm event.  So the situation of having housing in flood prone areas 
will just be repeated again.  

The issue of building the BAD should not be confused with the issue of 
removing all California dams.  To link the two issues is to attempt to cloud 
the logical arguments against the BAD with the illogical arguments (which I 
don't think anybody has made in this thread) of removing all dams in 
California.  Stay on the issue - the BAD is a waste of taxpayer money to 
support special interest groups at a significant cost to the environment.  
Your opinion of "environs" (in black helicopters?) doesn't matter.