🚀 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.  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!

Mr. Paul softens his stance somewhat.  My argument is not with
structures
per se but with the mentality that dams can solve our problems.  Let's
face
it, structures and and how they have been operated are part of the
problem.
As someone else astutely pointed out but Mr. Paul ignored in my post,
was
that the operation of the American River basin was exemplary this year.
Let's
hope that the operation of the Yuba, Feather, Tuolumne, Merced, and
Upper Sac
basins can be done in such a fashion the next time.

As usual, I am pegged as a radical, flat-water hater and elitist. 
Baloney. I
want to see growth here in the Valley that is planned, rational,
balanced,and
sustainable for all stakeholders.  Kneejerk irrigation districts and
agencies
such as LADWP give a bad name to some of the more forward thinking
advocates
of solutions to California's water dilemmas.

BTW Mr. Paul, dams may be viable alternatives to non-structural schemes,
but they
may not be economic.  Look at the hare-brained schemes TID cooked up in
the
1980's for the Tuolumne River basin.


- Robert Canning
Davis, CA