Here are some more letters to the Editor, from the Bee of February 1, joining the public discussion about the flood protection in our community.
Letters to the editor
Best insurance is prevention
Published 2:15 am PST Wednesday, February 1, 2006
The Jan. 23 front-page story "Behind levees, what's real risk?" on flood insurance was good and to the point. But the best flood insurance is prevention.
Going from 100-year flood protection to 400-to 500-year protection is far superior and may cost less. If all property owners were to reduce their premiums by more than half with 400-year protection, they could actually pay for an Auburn dam. Of course, revenue bonds should be used, with the power and water sales actually paying for the construction of the dam.
Editorials in the past have mentioned earthquake dangers. With the previously proposed all-concrete dam, there was a quake danger. With an earthen dam with a concrete core, the danger would be minimal, as a quake may cause a crack but it could not cause a failure. Of course the levees still need to be fixed or rebuilt.
- Bob Brown, Fair Oaks
Alas, more Auburn dam letters
As the rains increase, so do letters from the irrepressible Auburn dam boosters. For those not completely in the thrall of faith-based policy-making, here are a few factual reminders about Auburn dam:
* It is the most expensive U.S. dam project (more than Hoover or Grand Coulee dams in today's dollars).
* Because of its cost, neither water nor power it might produce would be economic.
* It replaces an existing recreational area, so that's a wash.
* Oh, yes, and it's on an active fault, and the odds the weight of stored water would cause a quake and dam collapse exceeds any offered improvement in flood protection.
Other than that, it's a swell idea.
On the other hand, we hear relatively little about existing policies that offer huge subsidies for land speculators who develop Godforsaken-20-foot-underwater flood plain surrounded by weak levees. (What else is North Natomas?)
Public policy rewarding such land speculation increases flood risks more than not building the dam.
- Mark Dempsey, Orangevale
Flood danger: Working moms?
Re "Children in the flood," letter, Jan. 13: I understand Elizabeth Andrade's concern for residents at risk for catastrophic flooding. But why blame working moms?
Andrade writes, "Where are the moms who could be organizing for a remedy to this dire situation?" Her answer? Working outside the home, where they won't be able to get their children to safety in the case of flooding. Andrade apparently assumes our children are all home alone, rather than in after-school programs, with caregivers or with parents lucky enough to have flexible work hours.
I have an idea for Andrade: focus on elected lawmakers, rather than on blaming overworked parents. The real issues are much larger than mothers who dare, in 2006, to work outside the home.
- Amy Anderson, Sacramento
Old weir vs. deeper channel
Recent discussions regarding the Sacramento Weir caused me to refer back to a 1949 college text, which states:
"Sacramento Weir has a rated capacity in excess of 100,000 cfs; yet when discharging full, it reduces the Sacramento stage by less than 1 foot, although the channel capacity at Sacramento is in the order of 100,000 cfs. In addition to decreasing the water-surface slope at Sacramento, the opening of the weir accelerates flow upstream, and a portion of the water that would normally pass over Fremont Weir is diverted down the Sacramento channel and over the Sacramento Weir. Thus, the weir serves largely to provide an alternate channel for upstream flows instead of accomplishing a protective diversion. Water is diverted into the upper bypass channels of the system over fixed weirs. These bypasses provide an auxiliary high-water channel but at the same time make it necessary to maintain extra lines of levees. It would appear that a single channel with adequate capacity would be more economical and effective."
- G. Arthur Cort, Latrobe
Weather history and forecast
It was with special interest that I read the Jan. 15 Forum article, "The storm at our door." As the article indicates, names like "Pineapple Express" are indeed misleading. A good name should designate where the storm forms and how it behaves.
The names "Alberta Clipper" and "Panhandle Hook" were coined by my father, Rheinhart "Bill" Harms. In the 1960s, as meteorologist in charge of the Milwaukee National Weather Service, he studied 35 storms that originated in Alberta, Canada, and the Oklahoma Panhandle. His research indicated that the heavy snow band occurs about 120 nautical miles north of the track of the surface low. Based on the precipitable water coming into the storm, he was able to forecast with reasonable accuracy the amount of snowfall the storm would deliver. Studying the patterns of past storms in our region may help us predict the rainfall totals more precisely as well. Our safety depends upon it.
- Harriet Knops, El Dorado Hills
