🚀 go-pugleaf

In <32F9ED1F.7387@ucdavis.edu> "Robert D. Canning"
<rdcanning@ucdavis.edu> writes: 
>
>Warren J. Paul wrote:
>> 
>> While there are some good points in this posting, such as pointing
out
>> that there was some mis-operation of flood storage, there is also
much
>> nonsense.  Yes, Folsom stores much water before there can be spills,
>> but that is how a multi-purpose project works. 
>
>God forbid we should reduce the amount of power generated and water
for
>irrigation
>from these wonderful multi-purpose projects.  If the ag people and
power
>generators didn't have such a grip on the projects to begin with they
>could possibly be operated more safely for flood control.  For
instance,
>if
>safe yields were recalculated to be more reflective of major events
such
>as happened in 1/97, then everything down theline could be readjusted
-
>levee heights, setbacks, channel capacities.  The economy of the state
>(ag and 
>other) has been changing for several decades.  Take a look around, ag
is
>not
>the biggest industry in the state anymore.
>
So you would seize storage from ag users for flood control by
government fiat, putting central valley farms out of production.  The
consequence of that would of course be more rapid urbanization of the
central valley, which I am sure is something you support.

> Yes, there will be much
>> damage if a flood is larger than the design flood, but many design
>> floods are at the PMF level.  Greater than the Probable Maximum
Flood
>> is not a sensible condition.  Reoperating multipurpose projects, as
>> suggested, for increased flood control is also nonsense since that
>> would screw up the agricultural water supply that drives
California's
>> economy and the potable water supply for many millions of people.
>
>Nonsense.
PMF means probable maximum flood, which is best described as the
largest flood that will never happen.  If a project is designed for
that flood level, or if the incremental damage downstream from project
failure due to a flood greater than a design flood less than the PMF is
0, why spend the money for greater flood protection?
>
>  What
>> is really needed here is more dedicated flood storage upstream, like
>> Auburn Dam would be.  The so called friends of rivers need to
recognize
>> that an additional million acre feet of dedicated flood storage each
on
>> the San Jaoquin and Sacramento would fix most problems, and would
not
>> result in their lamented pristine canyons being flooded except when
>> they would be flooded anyhow. 
>
>Great, just what we need structural answers to policy and operations
>problems.
>

Yes, structures work in well-understood ways.
>
>Sorry, Mr. Paul, but the answers you suggest are outmoded, out of
date,

????????


>and
>politically unacceptable to the vast majority of California citizens.

Truth is usually not politically correct.

Actually what is needed is a combination of solutions including
additional bypasses, levee upgrades, and more storage.  Structural
solutions have a role to play as part of an appropriate mix.  I
particulary object to so-called friends of rivers and other radicals
blanket hatred of flat water, and the elitist ethic which places the
needs of a few rafters over those of millions of people.  This is not
to say that a decision to build a dam should be lightly made without
appropriate consideration of alternatives.  But neither should a
decision to build non-structural alternatives.  And a dam is usually a
viable alternative to a non-structural scheme.

Warren J. Paul, P.E.
Dam Engineer and Proud of It!