🚀 go-pugleaf

Warren J. Paul wrote:
> 
> 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!
let us keep in mind that the ag water users you are talking about are
getting this water at far lower than market rates and are being
subsidised by the tax payers.  there is obviously aa attempt to protect
these nice subsidies and to protect bureaucratic jobs in the process.