🚀 go-pugleaf

"Andy Alexis" writes
>You can not use a dam for both water storage AND flood protection..for
>water storage, the dam must be full and for flood protection the dam
>must be empty.

Actually you can.  A certain volume of reservoir storage is set aside for 
flood control and a certain volume of reservoir storage is set aside 
for water supply.  Hence the term: multi-purpose project.  Water supply 
is between elev. "x" and "y" and on top of that is flood control 
between elev. "y" and "z."  The operators (USBR) of Folsom Reservoir almost 
got into trouble in 1986 (I think that was the year) because they had 
not released enough water out of the flood control space before the big 
flood came down, and almost didn't have enough storage to keep the 
Sacramento levees from overtopping.  They were trying to keep as much 
water as possible in the lake so as to have a nice surplus for the 
irrigation season.  In fairness to the USBR, I should point out they 
they dispute this contention, so use the above as an illustrative 
example only and not a historical fact.

>The Army Corps of Engineers, who have traditionally
>been fairly liberal (not in the Limbaugh sense) in the public works
>they have prescribed, recommended only a dry flood dam there.  The
>multi purpose dam that certain conservative legislators have been
>drooling over would be a huge, ultra-expensive, golden turkey that
>would end up benefiting big agriculture only.  

Probably true, but the main objections to the multi-purpose dam come from 
environmental groups who object to the permanent flooding of the 
American River Canyon.  Also, even if big agriculutre is the prime 
beneficiary, this also ought to help the water-starved cities in So. 
Calif.  

>It is strange how some
>legislators can be so critical of big government tax and spend pork
>barrel politics, yet still support 2 billion dollar dams that would benefit
>only a few.  The Army Corps flood dam would cost $300 million or so, and
>sounds reasonable.  But 2 Billion dollars? no way!

I believe the cost of a dry dam is above one billion now; and the 
environmental groups are deathly afraid that a dry dam could be turned 
into a permanent storage dam with the turn of a valve.  Therefore they 
are against any dam, and Sacramento (and Davis!) sit without adequate 
flood control for the reaaaaly big one that will inevitably come.  I 
think the issue is the increasing population that continues to move into 
Calif. despite inadequate water supply (and flood control).  Some kind 
of social engineering seems called for, but is it:
a.  Getting the farmers to change their ag. practices to something less 
water intensive?
b.  Controlling population (1) at the border, (2) though regional 
planning boards, (3) via coitus interruptus?
c.  Waiting for the paradigm shift?
I don't know.  I'm really looking for answers from you guys.
tom