🚀 go-pugleaf

In <5e2203$db2@qvarsx.er.usgs.gov> mbrigham@usgs.gov (Mark Brigham)
writes: 
>

>
>
>
>2. Fish--This has been mentioned briefly in the thread.  From what
I've read or
>heard on NPR, Western U.S. fish stocks have declined both from
overfishing AND
>dam building.  Is that true? 
No one REALLY knows, because there are only anecdotal tales of fishery
size prior to the construction of large dams in the Northwest, which
led to increased population.  In California, there were so many slmon
off the coast last year that the commercial fishermen were all
complaining about the low price they could get.
    
>
>3. For flood control, what are the economic and environmental
considerations of
>one large dam downstream that captures peak runoff from a large area,
or many
>small dams and/or created [or restored] wetlands higher up in a
watershed? 
>

In a large watershed, you cannot predict exactly where the rain will
fall (although you can measure snowfall water content each year). 
Hence to always achieve the same effect you need more storage in many
smaller flood control dams than with 1 large ones.  The O&M cost of
maintaining storage over many sprad out facilities, many of which in
the sierras will have difficult access most of the year, is always more
than at a single large, accessible facility.

>4. In the most flood-prone areas, what land uses are acceptable?  Is
it better
>to relocate out of the area, perhaps allowing agriculture but not
human
>habitation; or to attempt to control the flooding through engineering
solutions?

We should not build habitation in flood prone areas that are currently
unoccupied.  Thats a no-brainer.  However for occupied areas you get
into property rights and other political questions on which there are a
multitude of viewpoints.  My answer for California is a large increase
in flood storage on both the Sacremento and San Jaoquin systems in
combination with more bypasses and levee improvements where
appropriate.  A dedicated flood control Auburn Dam would provide a
significant improvement in protection for the City of Sacremento,
without permanently flooding the Upper American as claimed by
opponents.  The attitude amoung the environmental radicals that the
only good dam is no dam and the associated belief that somehow,
sometime in the future, someone will change the purpose of such a
project to growth engendering water supply has resulted in the federal
political defeat of funding for an excellent solution.  Large flood
control projects such as this do require federal dollars, hence they
are subject to effective smear campaigns.

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