The best news from today’s Bee editorial is that “This page has long supported various substantive, conceivably achievable Auburn dam proposals.”
It appears the public discussion is growing much more substantive, and achievability grows in the light of what the nation saw from New Orleans.
New Orleans had 250 year flood protection when it flooded. Sacramento’s current plan calls for 200 year protection through levee strengthening and a questionable raising of Folsom Dam’s height.
Thank goodness there are public leaders who see 200 year flood protection as grossly inadequate, and will continue to push for the 500 year flood protection an Auburn Dam, redesigned to accommodate larger water storage, will bring.
Here is an excerpt.
Editorial: Auburn Dam weirdness
Debate shouldn't slow flood progress
Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The Auburn Dam isn't dead after all. At least three different strategies have recently surfaced to revive some version of the proposal.
To refresh your memory: Congress authorized a multipurpose dam in 1965. Mother Nature halted the project with a Sierra earthquake that led to unresolved seismic concerns. And so for three decades, this has been a debate, not a real dam project.
But back to those three strategies.
Auburn Strategy No. 1: Study it. A $1 million review is due to Congress this summer.
Strategy No 2: Build a "dry" flood control dam. Such a dam (rejected by Congress in 1992 and 1996) would have a large hole at channel level. But the dam would hold back flood flows long enough to give Sacramento time to survive the peak surge. Rep. David Hobson of Ohio, chairman of a House water subcommittee, likes this approach.
Strategy No 3: Build a big "wet" Auburn dam. This seems to be the preference of Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, a longtime dam booster.
