We, and most people living here, would agree that the optimal option is to “improve protection of communities that stand in harm's way” and though flood protection funds are rare, the case should continue to be made that as far as flooding goes, the optimal option is the one that should be pursued long-term though temporary fixes are certainly appropriate in the meantime.
Levees, for all of their inherent problems of maintenance and structural deficiencies, are temporary fixes for flood protection, but dams, in this case the Auburn Dam and increasing the height of Shasta Dam (originally engineered to be two hundred feet higher, tripling its storage, and still able to be built out) is the optimal long range solution.
An excerpt.
Editorial: In harm's way?
Weighing Clarksburg safety vs. new homes
- Published 12:00 am PST Monday, November 6, 2006
The growth debate in the small Delta town of Clarksburg illustrates a much larger problem about flood protection and new investments throughout the Central Valley.
The desired goal would be to improve protection of communities that stand in harm's way. The undesired result would be to trigger new growth in areas that are so dangerous and so delicate that significant new development doesn't belong there.
Public safety and reasonable growth strategies can be in conflict. For the elected leaders who decide how to spend precious flood control funds and where communities should grow, their first step is to acknowledge the conflict. At the moment in Clarksburg, the Yolo County Board of Supervisors is in a state of denial.
