🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

 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.

  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.
Changes in Folsom's operations based on the 1986 event produced only 24
hours of 110,000 cfs release which means less pressure on downstream
levees.
They almost lost control of Oroville because they didn't have enough
space and don't 
have enough dumping capacity.  The Corps even admits that we were lucky
that Shasta didn't have to start dumping.


Sorry, Mr. Paul, but the answers you suggest are outmoded, out of date,
and
politically unacceptable to the vast majority of California citizens.

-- 
Robert D. Canning, Ph.D.	         email:   rdcanning@ucdavis.edu
Clinical Instructor of Psychiatry          fax:   916-731-7497
University of California Davis &         phone:   916-731-7325
PTSD Clinical Team, VA Mental Health Clinic, Sacramento