🚀 go-pugleaf

>I think I would tend to be on Mr. Paul's side, but I retain an open mind. 
>My request to those of you on the other side is, if you have a viable
>non-structural alternative, tell me in detail what it is, tell me what it
>will cost, and tell me how it will work.  Tell me what you are going to do
>with the people and improvements which already occupy the area you propose
>to rededicate to natural flood plane.  Tell me what you propose to do with
>California agriculture.  Tell me what you plan to do about vested property
>rights in the agricultural usage of water.  Tell me about ***all*** of the
>considerations that have been swept under the rug in your postings to
>date.  And, most definitely, demonstrate to me your qualifications to
>formulate, evaluate and report on such a plan.
>
>Thank you.
>
>-- 
>Dave Powell
>dopowell@alumni.caltech.edu

Problems with proposed solutions by environmental groups like "Friends
of the River" or the "Sierra Club" are that such proposals are drawn up
intentionally vague.  Details are left undisclosed until some later
date.  Needless to say the proposal "CALIFORNIA�S OPPORTUNITY TO ACHIEVE
IMPROVED FLOOD MANAGEMENT AND MAJOR ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION" needs to be
explained in much more detail.  Until such detail is forthcoming, at the
surface it appears this proposed solution has more MAJOR ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION than actual IMPROVED FLOOD MANAGEMENT.

Disclosure with regard to this proposed solution should include more of
the following:

1.  Which rivers & what sections are considered for levee set backs?
Specific               counties & cities impacted should be identified
along with actual areas taken           in by such set backs. A detailed
map would be excellent. Also is rezoning               properties
required? If so specify properties existing & new
zoning                     classifications.

2.  What infrastructure will be affected? And how? Specific roads,
highways              bridges etc., should be identified and if the
proposal includes reconstruction         of the same.

3.  Upon disclosure of this information, an itemized cost estimate break
down               for each area needs to be presented with regards to
the following                       information:

	LEVEE SET BACK
	a. New levee construction per mile of construction per county
	b. Land & housing acquisitions per county (commercial & residential)
	c. Relocations per county (commercial & residential)
	c. Infrastructure reconstruction per county
	d. Reimbursements for commercial business losses
(including                                long term agricultural)

A reasonable estimate will include FAIR property, housing, food market
values and ACTUAL engineering design cost including agencies approval
processing fees.  
If real world solutions to California flood problems can be solved
without dams, great let's do them.  However if not viable & cost
effective, dams should definitely be one consideration in the mix. Of
all interested parties who have a stake in northern California water,
the people who are impacted the most by potential flooding are ALWAYS
considered last.  Southern California has water needs and shortly will
be denied access to the Colorado river water, so demand on northern
California water will surely increase. Yet the southern part of the
state is to damn environmentally sensitive, they will not build their
own reservoirs.  Fisheries, agriculture and domestic water uses too have
their needs.  On top of this crowd are the environmentalist and their
claim that dams are NEVER a viable solution.  Interestingly, all these
interested parties have Political Action Committees to push their
individual agendas while potential flood victims have none which is the
one reality environmental organizations fear the most.  One thing is for
sure, water is soon to be a hot topic in California and something has
got to give.


Viable realistic solutions are needed, not just one sided propositions
reflecting bias interest.  Levee & river maintenance, levee set back and
reevaluating dam operations are potential alternatives to building dams.
However, DAMS ARE AND MUST REMAIN A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE IF NECESSARY. 
SHOW ONE REALLY GOOD REASON WHY NOT, ENOUGH RHETORIC.

No credentials here, but don't need one to get caught in the cross fire
of irresponsible environmentalism & unscrupulous politicians.

L. Needham
Yuba City, CA