Posted on 02/19/2006 1:15:00 PM PST by SierraWasp
Tempting fate: A torrent of doubts
Project backers expect electricity, water and flood protection, but critics call it pie-in-the-sky
By Matt Weiser -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, February 19, 2006
American taxpayers have had an unsteady relationship with the Auburn dam: $400 million spent so far on a dam that was never built; another $30 million through the end of this year to restore the former construction site; and now $1 million more to study whether to build the dam after all.
Since Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, Auburn dam supporters have rallied behind the project anew, suggesting it should be revived to protect Sacramento from a similar disaster. The debate over the dam has always been politically charged...(snip).
Supporters want to build a multiuse dam, which would rely on water sales, hydroelectric power and recreation fees to offset a likely cost of $5 billion.
(snip)
"The dam is incredibly controversial because it runs flat into the fundamental beliefs of fiscal conservatives and environmentalists. It is, in effect, financially and politically impossible at this time, so you better get a good pair of water wings, or you better find something else."
For more than two decades, Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, has led the Auburn dam faithful. It was he who persuaded the government to spend $1 million on another dam study by attaching it to an energy and water appropriations bill in November.
(snip)
"Any dam will eventually pay for itself," Doolittle said. "If you build a multipurpose dam, it's a moneymaking machine because it generates the sale of electricity and of water. The project is alive and well, and it begs to be completed."
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I sure would be interested to get every possible opinion on this subject!!!
Wasp, your link requires registration for access. Unless there is some way to avoid that, I'll have to pass on this one.
I don't think I have ever seen fiscal conservatives against this project. Wasn't it Matsui that was against it?
Knowing nothing about this "project" it would seem to me it's just another boondoggle porkbacon POS legislation at the taxpayers expense. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
FMCDH(BITS)
I don't read the Bee (valley issue of Pravda), nor do I visit their web pages, but count me as a supporter of any and all dams; just don't send the water south ;o)
It was needed the day they started building it and it is needed more than ever now!
Environuts and a handfull of yuppie river rafters have stopped it for years.
Not having it has put a real crimp in the overall state water plan, eliminated the electricity that would have been generated when we are energy short, plus the flood control that if and when it happens will cost 10 times the cost of completing the dam when the delta levies colapse.
OK, you are wrong. We do need the dam, for power generation, and for more water supply reserves. We should have built the dam 30 years ago, and every day we wait increases the cost.
As a flood control mechanism Auburn Dam would be effective. The obvious question that arises is the cost to benefit ratio. Can anyone justify the cost of a mountain of concrete needed only every 100 years and then only requiring 25% of its design capacity?
Bingo. Today's its too late.
Today the proposed system could not reach operational capacity to generate power and store excess water for years. Theoretically as much as 100 years. The watershed has been legally committed to other uses and the system could only capture water during >50 year storms without legal challenge from a myriad of affected groups with standing, including the federal government. Shifting the burden to compensate for the lost water stored behind Auburn Dam could also force California into a confrontation with 7 other western states over use of the Colorado River.
It's too late unless 30 years of water law precedents are rewritten.
I guess they don't really appreciate their cheap and plentiful produce at the supermarket afterall!!! Phhhhhht!!!
To me, it's red meat for economic/fiscal conservatives interested in our government's support of a free market/free economy that supports the concept of competitive free enterprise with government doing only those things that the business/ag/water supplier communities cannot do for themselves!!!
So don't let a little registration irritation get in your way of a good spirited renewal of the glory days of CA!!!
Where on earth are you getting this info??? Was this in the BEE article? If it is, it's pure spin!!!
I'll check it out further. Depends on how nosy they are and what their privacy policy is -- we'll see. I have had a few bad experiences in the past that I'm not anxious to repeat.
I understand. I din't like it either and really resented doing it, but it wasn't too bad. It's ok. Suit yourself.
What is spin?
1) The established water rights to American River runoff to the mouth of San Francisco Bay or Lake Perris or Castaic Lake?
2) The amount of time that it would take to accumulate 2.5M af of runoff after the existing water commitments are met?
3) The flood control capacity of another reservoir on the American River to handle the excess of a 100 year storm that the present system can't?
4) The 4 fold increase in capacity of a flood control reservoir necessasry to accommodate the economical generation of power or provide a stable lake level for recreational businesses?
5) The conflict between flood control, power generation and recreation that wildly inflates the cost of a simple flood controll project.
6) The legal howl that will be created when 500K af are removed annually for 5 consecutive years from a critical estuary, agribusiness and a thirsty metropolis that contains 35% of California's electorate with no immediate benefit to anyone, just filling a hole.?
Please point out the spin.
FMCDH(BITS)
I have lived with this project since I came to CA in 1964 and followed it closely all the way through being chaiman of the Mountain Counties Water Resource Association in the late 90's.
As it states in the article, Doolittle answered each and every "problem" presented to him in the recent interview. The article is rife with NRDC and other numb-nut EnvironMentalist whacko claims of interminable "problems!" Certainly, every Democrat politico and EnvronMental activist have feverishly tried to slam every possible door on this project in every possible way for nearly 40 years now. They sincerely hope you and everyother person considering the question will simply throw up their hands and say "screw it!"
Well all the "obstacles" you listed are overcomeable if and when the people develop the will to overcome bizzare mistakes of the past to keep our state's water supply and flood control on an even keel despite the appetite to play in it when it's white, rather than when it's flat!!!
I am in favor of the Auburn flood control project but only the flood control project. A flood control project does not require rewriting water law or depriving any entity of water. The portals are left open until they are needed. Just as earthen, flood control dams guard an empty reservoir, available for multi-use, until the storage is needed. An adequate flood control project could have been built with half the money expended on the proposal thus far.
A larger dam can be built but the water compacts that would allow runoff diversion for storage behind the dam need to be negotiated before the dam is built. That critical issue has not even been addressed to date.
Energy generation is an absolute last priority for the Auburn project if funded with public money. Those touting this feature are purposely misleading the public into an inefficient use of their money. That statement does not preclude private participation in the construction of the reservoir but only if the energy produced is publicly regulated at its source. Not a common practice and an agreement that most utilities would reject. Another problem with this sort of private-public partnership approach is that few private enterprises, beyond publicly regulated utilities, have that much capital and their participation would be an obvious conflict of interest.
Diversion of their revenues streams to meet the burden of the bonding would simply be an exercise in robbing Peter to pay Paul with the blessing of the CPUC. Their stock holders would not allow the diversion and the CPUC would come under tremendous pressure to inflate utility charges to protect the share holders equity risk, some of it CalPERS money.
The statement that all obstacles can be overcome with change is accurate. The bigger question is will the financiers, the electorate, be given input into the matter? Thus far they haven't and the project has remained a controversy among the local political elite and a handful of citizen activists. I'm estimating that 99% of Californians could not help find the scar in the hillside if asked for directions.
Yes I have followed McClatchy's reporting over the years but I also have a minor in hydrology and a professional acquaintance named Ken Schmidt. We have toured the area and reviewed the historical runoff data for that basin. More flood control is economically justifiable on the American River but a white elephant, the height of Hoover, intended primarily for power generation and a water supply to enable the further urbanization of the Sierra foothills north and east of Folsom, is not.
In this case we do not agree to disagree. We simply disagree on any development beyond flood control.
The only area we still disagree a little is in the power generation area, but that isn't a strong disagreement. I'm just pist that we lost both Rancho Seco and Auburn Dam as power generation sorces when we need cheap, clean power so badly.
Tell me something... Why is everybody so absolutely totally freaked out about anyone building a home anywhere north and east of Folsom??? What's up with that??? How would we house any workers if we were able to get any good clean industry up here besides Intel, for goodness sake??? Why is everyone so danged prejudiced???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.