🚀 go-pugleaf

sci.engr.civil
Subject: Re: California's Opportunity to Achieve Improved Flood Control

I wish to answer and to reply at some messages what are relative to
Flood Control. It seems me that there is a non-problem.
There are several solutions for flood control. Dam is one among others.
It is not often the best solution, and it is often the worst. For instance
is the sufficient capacity of dam for containing secular or semi-secular 
flood? Maintenance? What type of dam?
I have a french current example where two dams designed to fight flood,
overflow in one minute, and someones in one hour.
Dams are useful to produce power or to fight drought, and they may stand up 
to overflows.
If you want to fight flood, the great principles are:
1) Make the flow easier.
2) Urban planning.
3) Dams must stand up to overflows.

Lucien COSTE
Risks and environment attache.
Senior lecturer in natural hazards (Saint Etienne National School of Mines)
training: public works engineer
Engineer and sometimes ashamed of it.
I am not ecologist!

>Frank Creager wrote

>I, as a taxpayer, am getting tired of spending money of huge costly
>projects that are attempts to make up for errors in previous huge costly
>projects.  There is another option, flood easements.     

>In most areas it is cheaper to purchase property in the floodplain and
>retire it to open space use.  Usually the economic analyses for structural
>flood control projects compare the cost of flooding homes to building a dam
>and not flooding homes. 

Mark Brigham Environmental Engineer
(mbrigham@usgs.gov) wrote

>  snipped.

>Some considerations are: 
..............

>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?
>It's probably not economical (nor desirable from a historical/cultural
>standpoint) to move New Orleans, but in lower-density areas, at what point 
does
>it become economical?  Who should pay for relocation?  For flood control?]


>Don McKenzie  (mcaldon@wavenet.com ) wrote

>>wjpaul@ix.netcom.com(Warren J. Paul ) wrote:
>>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 $$)?

Path: 
news.edf.fr!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnp
lanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!mr.net!news-out.communique.ne
t!uunet!in1.uu.net!206.250.118.17!nntp.earthlink.net!usenet

David Underwood <davidlkayp@earthlink.net> wrote

>> Warren J. Paul, P.E.wrote
>> Dam Engineer and Proud of it!

>Why is it Mr. Paul that you continuously resort to invectives when
>refering to those who do not agree with you?  What is your obvious love
>affair with the Aubern dam in particular.  You are tring to sell it as a
>flood control dam but virtually everone else recognizes it for what it
>really is, a big pork barrel project for Rep. John Dolittle and his
>eviloper friends.  these are the same people who were tring to get a
>special tax district  to protect the developers that want to build in
>the flood plain west of the capitol.  The fact of the matter is that
>"THERE WILL BE NO AUBERN DAM".  As to your refering to those people who
>appreciate open spaces and free flowing rivers, you could use the same
>argument regarding the Pacific Crest Trail as it is only used by a few
>"elitist backpackers' and therefore we should pave it so that millions
>of motorcyclists could use it also.