🚀 go-pugleaf

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

On the topic of what is needed, I could agree with most of the points in
what I copied above - in principle. I think that the first post on this
thread isn't that far from what Warren is suggesting. The key point of
contention is that of storage. How much storage can we use, and still
avoid the Probable Maximum Flood limit of the structure. That's where
the statistics have to come into play. Unfortunatly, people are
polarized on this topic, and when statistics come into play, both sides
can begin to abuse them.

There are economic issues which make mis-operation of flood storage more
likely. After all, money is water; But, water is also risk. We've
learned that lesson (again) from the last storm, and the storms of '86.

If a number of us in California, Wisconsin, and Washington DC hadn't
come together on this issue in the early part of this decade, with
regards to the operation of flood control in the American River basin,
we would have had a terrible calamity this year.

Some of those people that came together on this are engineers. Many of
them were landowners and homeowners. Many them were watersports
enthusiasts (both whitewater _and_ waterskiing). Some of them are even
politicans & lobbists.

And then there was the Army. Once the Army had clear direction from
Congress, they did an excellent job of rebuilding and repairing the
levees along the American river below Folsum Dam, and Folsum Dam itself.
They began operating the dam in accordance with the proper AEP and PMF
statistics in mind. 

Notice that despite a flow far in excess of '86 when the dam and levees
almost failed, that instead of problems, the American River watershed
was used as an example of flood control that worked as designed.

I believe deep in my heart that these efforts in the American River
Watershed saved homes, families, and lives.
 

...and on a related thread (Re: California Flood Protection)
Tom McCloud wrote:
...
> 
>          It seems to me that no amount of dams or levees, or dollars
> spent, is going to stop periodic flooding of land 17 feet below sea
> level.  And the news of recent weeks makes it sound like nobody in
> California learned any lessons from the earlier floods.
...

It's a good point; But, on the topic of being below sea level, levees
can prevent most flooding, even in a situation like this. Perhaps
someone from the Netherlands can pipe in here, but a majority of that
nation's land is below sea level, and the levees there work quite
nicely.

I'll paraphrase a statement I made in the American River Watershed
hearings in '92 (I was the handicapped guy with Canadian/aka FDR
crutches if you were there):

I was born in New Orleans Lousiana. One of my first childhood memories
was when my grandaddy took me for a walk, and we went to look at the
levee that protected our home. That was my first appreciation for the
power of nature, and the ingenuity of engineers that kept my home dry.
I hope that our Engineers in the west can do as good a job making the
levees in California whole again, as the engineers that I grew up
admiring.

Please people, let's work together on this. Let's do what's right for
ourselves, each other, our children, and our land.

...here's where the national anthem begins... but I'll leave that off so
I don't overload newservers with a gigantic .aiff MIME enclosure...



-- 

--
Michael K. Poimboeuf mkp@sgi.com
Digital Media
Desktop Systems Division
Silicon Graphics Inc. Mtn View California
---------------------------------------------------------