It is a good reminder, as Assemblyman Niello provided in a letter published in the Sacramento Bee, that the flood protection—from 100 year protection to 200 year protection—being touted from the Folsom Dam improvements are minimal in relation to what most river cities in the nation have, and especially to what we need to have, which is 500 year protection (the gold standard) which only the Auburn Dam can provide.
The graph says it all, and the print is small so the cities whose current levels of flood protection are listed, from the left are, Tacoma, St. Louis, Dallas, & Kansas City, who all have met the gold standard, while New Orleans has, after their recent improvements, a 250 year level, while Sacramento, in the red at a 100 year level, will have a 200 year level of protection after the Folsom Dam improvements.
The numbers on the left representing the level of coverage, starting from the bottom are 85, 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600.
An excerpt.
“Re "Folsom Dam upgrade needs a new rulebook" (Page A1, Dec. 6): It's important to acknowledge the original intent of the Folsom Dam upgrade: flood protection. The article correctly states that "The project is expected to … double flood protection for the Sacramento region."
“It's also crucial for our area to know that after this project is completed, our area will suffer from the one or two lowest levels of flood protection as compared to other metro areas in the country. That's right, we will double our level of flood protection and we will still be about last place in the national rankings. In fact, most areas at risk for flooding have at least double the level of protection that we will have.
“We will never attain a level of flood protection beyond the inadequate standard with which we must suffer without the ability to store water on the American River above Folsom Dam. That was the Auburn Dam, which seems to have been concluded a dead issue by too many.”
