Here are excerpts from last Sunday’s Bee, letters to the editor section, continuing the public discussion about the Auburn Dam.
1) "Feb. 19 articles discussed flood control and the Auburn dam in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the great flood threat of 1986. That the Auburn dam is needed is not conjecture. Further studies are not needed. What is needed is money.
"The Bee seemed to understand the need in 1996. On June 12, a Bee editorial examining options for flood protection proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers said an expandable flood control dam being proposed by a coalition of local congressional representatives (including Rep. Robert Matsui) would preserve the options of strengthening levees and increasing the outlets of the Folsom Dam. In addition to providing a 400-year level of flood protection and the best return on federal investment - "- Joe Sullivan, SacramentoExecutive Director, Sacramento County Taxpayers League
2) "I want to thank The Bee for the Feb. 19 article "A torrent of doubts." Auburn dam proponents want to ignore the risks of building a massive 700-foot-high dam in a multi-stranded fault zone right above Sacramento. Dam proponents ignore estimates by geologists that this fault zone could produce an earthquake over three times more powerful than the dam would be designed to withstand.
"Unfortunately, the article did not mention the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's estimates of consequences if Auburn dam failed when full. Floodwaters would hit Folsom in five minutes (also destroying Folsom Dam), hit Nimbus Dam in 25 minutes, then sweep 70 feet over it."
- Jimmy Spearow, Davis
3) "An Auburn dam is probably the only real solution to the problem of flooding in Sacramento. Whatever its cost is, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the potential cost of a flood.
An Auburn dam would be a concrete gravity dam set between canyon walls of solid rock. It would take an atomic bomb to breach it. It can easily be engineered to withstand any potential earthquake.
"Folsom Dam, on the other hand, is a concrete dam between miles of earth dikes (levees) that can be breached by a small amount of conventional explosives or the hydrostatic pressure of water. Raising the water level higher on these dikes is insane. It would be putting a time bomb above the city." - Bill Palazzini, P.E., Granite Bay
4) "Re "A torrent of doubts," Feb. 19: Is a $5 billion dam too costly compared with the possible $100 billion life, property and job loss in this region if the imminent flood predictions become a reality (consider the rising costs occurring for New Orleans and slow recovery).
A recent state study found that California can meet its water needs through 2030 by maximizing conservation and recycling. Then what? The Auburn Dam would supply an additional 700,000 homes with water. With public support this dam could be built before 2030."- Jo Nastal, Granite Bay
5) "The Feb. 19 front page article "A Torrent of doubts" was a poor addition to the "Tempting Fate" series. How did a good series on Sacramento's flood risk turn out such an anti-flood-control article? Doesn't The Bee ever get tired of kissing up to the environmentalists? When is The Bee going to realize that Sacramento is in danger? This kind of article is precisely the reason Sacramento has a better chance of flooding like New Orleans than any major American city. "- Tony Small, Sacramento
