🚀 go-pugleaf

Ralph Finch wrote:
> 
> In article <4psipd$p1c@mark.ucdavis.edu> ez059768@rocky.ucdavis.edu (Brett Valle) writes:
> 
>    OK, even though your defeating the whole purpose of Doolittle's
>    "Flood Control Dam," I'll argue with your three points.  (1)
>    protect property - the dam lies on an active fault system that has
>    a significant chance of releasing in the next 50-100 years
> 
> Now here's a crock.  Earthquake probability making, like hydrology, is
> basically a statistical, not deterministic, science.  That means you
> need data, lots of it, to determine return intervals.  And you just
> don't have that in Auburn.

Statistically, a multi-purpose dam in an active fault area would 
increase the chances of earthquakes because of added pressure on the 
underlying formations caused by the water behind the dam. 

>    of the USGS believe is quite possible), downtown Sacramento will
>    sit in 40 feet of water six hours after the rupture.
> 
> _If_ the dam happens to be brim full when the earthquake
> happens. Flooding w/o the dam is much more likely.

When the dam is full, earthquakes will be most likely.  

Although minor flooding  may occur without the dam, 
a breach of a dam this size would have devastating results.

Gracias otra vez amigo.

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

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