🚀 go-pugleaf

: Yes, probably true.  But it is the announced intent of SAFCA (Sacramento 
: Area Flood Control Authority) to get the Natomas area out of the flood 
: plain, irrespective of the means.  Here the question is the level of 
: protection.  If other means (levees, tinkering with Folsom, diversion 
: to the south) are used to get Natomas out of the flood plain, the level 
: of protection there is likely to protect for less than a 200-year 
: return interval flood.  As the Mississippi/Missouri floods last year 
: demonstrated pretty well, these very large (500-year) floods are not 
: some hydrologist's wet dream.  They can really happen.  Saint Louis had 
: a 200-year plus floodwall that came within 0.8 foot of overtopping.  
: That's why a very high level of protection for urban areas is always 
: desirable, but is not present at Natomas (or Sacramento for that 
: matter).  Your basic dam can protect against these infrequent floods.

First, Natomas cannot be removed from the flood plain, it can only 
receive degrees of protection.  

Second.  North Natomas is not threatened by the American River flooding 
but by Arcade, Dry and other creeks coming in from the north, as well as 
flooding from the far north near the Yuba where a number of rivers, 
bypasses and channels could break levees and pour water into the Natomas 
area.  All a dry dam would do at Auburn is reduce the flow in the lower 
American and allow a somewhat easier exiting of Arcade and Dry creeks.  
In the Auburn Dry Dam bill there was public money for levees around 
Natomas.  The tax payer was going to bail out the development in this area.
That is about the extent of how this dam could have helped Natomas's 
grave flood problem.  

Some parts of North Natomas are almost 20 feet below water level.  When 
the 100 year flood happens (statistically a 1% chance per year), many 
people will probably die if they allow housing to be built here.  As the 
Mississippi floods show, acts of God will happen.  Even a 200 year levee 
will eventually be breached.  What really seems to drive this is that 
some of the wealthiest, most powerful developers in the area have 
invested heavily in buying the raw farmland to speculate on the ability 
of the public to build them the levees which will allow their land to 
skyrocket in value.  And they will likely have died before the disaster 
eventually happens.  Our children's generation will get to pay the 
penalities, as seems to be the modus operendi of this generation.  



: >How about those that currently recreate on the river that this dam 
: >would bury under silt? How about those that own land that would be 
: >condemed. How about the gold miners that would lose their livelyhood? 
: >How about the loss of a fantastic stock of native Rainbow trout? How 
: >about drowning an area that is just now begining to support Bear & 
: >Mtn Lion populations again?
: All true.  Does a dry dam (pool fills only during floods) engender the 
: same objections? 

: >And what about the fools who buy property that is "protected" by this 
: >behemouth that are flooded out when the Sacramento River overflows its 
: >levees, and the drainage system in Natomas plugs up?
: Well, you've got other behemoths like Shasta and Oroville that are 
: supposed to keep the Sacramento River from flooding.  The Natomas 
: drainage system will plug up if it's not maintained.
:  


--
---
Kevin Wolf
724 N St
Davis, CA 95616
phone and fax: 916-758-4211