🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5e5bm2$bod@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
wjpaul@ix.netcom.com(Warren J. Paul ) wrote:
[snip]
> 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.  

Certainly true.

>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.
>
A typical engineer speech.  Do you deny that all dams have some detrimental
aspects, besides the fact they cost money, and that their construction needs
to be decided on the basis of evaluating costs (environmental as well as $$)?
If you cannot deny this, then it's obvious that subjective factors must 
enter into 
any decision, to build or not to build.

-- 
Don McKenzie

   Republican environmentalists: 
Check out <http://www.rep.org>