This opinion piece from today’s Bee is a thoughtful overview of the reasons we need a major new dam on the American River. It presents the issues of concern that have been raised, addressing them clearly and correctly.
The only remaining question we have concerns the storage capacity of the present design of the Auburn Dam. Will the capacity be large enough to capture major storm run-off without having 130,000 cubic feet per second rushing down the Lower American River harming the integrity of the Parkway?
We anticipate that the current congressional review will address this.
Here is an excerpt.
Other view: Why an Auburn dam is a solid, sensible idea
By Bruce Kranz -- Special To The BeePublished 2:15 am PST Friday, March 17, 2006
Sacramento has the worst flood protection for a metropolitan area in the nation, a one-in-100 or greater risk of flooding every year. New Orleans had a one-in-250 risk. Katrina devastated it. Raising Folsom Dam and fortifying levees would provide one-in-200 protection. An Auburn dam would provide something more like a one-in-500 risk, according to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Its design is intended to withstand any overtopping that could cause damage to the dam and downstream.
No one seriously disputes that an Auburn dam is the best solution for the risk of a 250-to 500-year flood, just like the one that hit New Orleans. In 1990, Measure T received 59 percent in Sacramento County voting. The measure directed the Board of Supervisors to finance a multipurpose dam. In another measure on that ballot, 82 percent supported taxing themselves for improved flood protection. The voters got neither.
The American River Authority, a joint powers agency comprising San Joaquin, El Dorado and Placer county agencies, polled Sacramento voters in December 2005. Learning that the dam would provide 500-year flood protection plus additional water for drinking and for fish and wildlife, electricity and recreation, 62 percent supported an Auburn dam. Only 25 percent were opposed. The dam is a good idea that most people like.
So why the holdup? Opponents are concerned about the environment, earthquakes, the cost and water supplies.
The top issue in the ARA poll was "protecting our water supply from pollution and other contamination" (65 percent in favor). Katrina waters reeked with toxic chemicals, raw sewage and carcasses. The hurricane washed away riparian and wildlife habitat.
That was preventable. New Orleans rejected a $757 million (1982) Lake Pontchartrain hurricane barrier that offered greater flood protection. If the barrier had been built, New Orleans would not have flooded, according to Joseph Towers, retired attorney with the Army Corps of Engineers' New Orleans District. An Auburn dam would prevent such pollution and the project would replace all lost oak, chaparral, pine forest and riverine habitat. The American River Parkway Preservation Society wants the dam's controlled flows and temperature for the salmon.
Earthquakes? Michael Shaeffer, retired engineer for the Bureau of Reclamation, recently spoke about quakes at Auburn. He said that a computer model - a fantasy game - could show a horrible, disappearing dam. But Shaeffer said the model wasn't realistic. He said the bureau's volumes of studies showed the chances of an earthquake at the site are infinitely small - perhaps as little as one-in-100-million years compared to odds of a devastating flood in Sacramento of one-in-100 or greater risk. What about dam-induced earthquakes? The Oroville Dam area had a 5.7 quake in 1975, but had quakes before the dam existed. Shaeffer said the Auburn dam proposal was designed for a "maximum probable event" - a 6.5 quake, 80 times the Oroville quake. False fears are the opponents of the Auburn dam project.
An Auburn dam costing $3 billion will surely not get any cheaper, nor will the price of water and electricity. The sale of water and electricity will pay for it many times over. Oroville and Folsom dams were once said to be too costly; they are now long paid off. Water and electricity sales will keep on giving. The alternatives cost between $6 billion to $12 billion to raise Folsom seven feet and also to fix the forever-leaking many hundreds of miles of levees in the Central Valley and beyond.
In Sacramento, a one-in-200-year flood - Katrina lite - would submerge 104,000 homes, 3,820 commercial buildings, 573 industrial sites and 212,000 acres of land, costing $14 billion; $47 billion in property is at risk in the Central Valley flood system. Folsom and Oroville dams averted major floods in 1956, 1964, 1986, 1995 and 1997, according to the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency.
Auburn would hold 2.3 million acre-feet of water storage and allow Folsom to hold close to its 1 million acre-feet capacity most of the year. These annual yields would be less than capacity, but their yields would be larger than that of other proposed new surface storage facilities.
