California dam RIP

Except that the old technology isnt going to last forever, dams have a limited life expectancy after that they get clogged with sediment and a new one must be built or it has to be excavated with a cost of god knows how many millions of dollars.

The cost is cheap. Dams have been built for decades in places without significant capital. How do you think third world countries afforded them? I guarantee you they can afford them more than they can desalination plants.

And the fact dams don't last forever is all the more reason to make sure we keep building them. This Oroville dam crisis is emblematic of that. People are rightly focusing on the potential loss of life and property, but what about the loss of water supplies for our second largest reservoir in the state? That wouldn't be so potentially crippling if we had more reservoirs.
 
Water has to go somewhere indeed, thats why you start releasing water when you are a half capacity if you expect the possibility of more rainfall, a dam being broken is no excuse, it simply means you need to start releasing water earlier, i remember when i was in college we were simulating a dam release method taking into account the carrying capacity of waterways, its something thats relatively easy to make.

So its either gross negligency or someone wanted to see the dam full without thinking on the consequences.
In their defense it's a complicated, unprecedented issue. They've also got to work with and get approval from counties/cities downstream as well as from the supremely incompetent Department of Water Resources(DWR).

There's a lot of blame to go around, but to argue that the structural integrity of the infrastructure isn't part of the problem is fucking asinine.
 
The cost is cheap. Dams have been built for decades in places without significant capital. How do you think third world countries afforded them? I guarantee you they can afford them more than they can desalination plants.

And the fact dams don't last forever is all the more reason to make sure we keep building them. This Oroville dam crisis is emblematic of that. People are rightly focusing on the potential loss of life and property, but what about the loss of water supplies for our second largest reservoir in the state? That wouldn't be so potentially crippling if we had more reservoirs.

1.- The cost is certainly not cheap, when you factor the externalities, burning coal next to a city was cheap, using lead in gasoline was cheap too. And once a dam runs its course, you need to build another dam elsewhere and the locations are limited in nature.

2.- Or it wouldnt be as crippling if Californians managed their water with more responsibility.
 
California's Oroville Dam disaster is a wake-up call for America
By Jake Novak​

No, humans cannot make it rain, stop the rain, or produce real rainbows in the sky. But we can do things that protect ourselves from the rain and get it to work for our agriculture and overall economy. And it's clearer than ever that Californians have simply failed to do those things as the Oroville Dam crisis continues to force massive evacuations and raises fears of a potential disaster.

When we talk about America's need for an improved and repaired infrastructure, we usually focus on roads, airports, and innovative new projects like the Hyperloop. But we often forget the crucial role dams play in our infrastructure grid. When built and used properly, dams provide crucial clean water resources for commercial and private use, ease the effects and threats of flooding, and also provide a massive source of power via hydroelectricity.

The Oroville Dam in Northern California was built to do all those things, and it has. But there's one problem: It's old. The dam was first put into operation in May of 1968, making the nearly 50-year-old facility basically "geriatric" by civil engineering standards. And even if it weren't as old, California's environmental special interest groups have effectively frozen the construction of new dams and reservoirs in the state since the mid-1970s. That's overtaxed the system of existing dams and made the Oroville situation all the more dangerous.

Before this year, the discussion in California about dams was dominated by the fact that the state was experiencing a drought, as opposed to the continued storms and flooding its facing now.

Conservatives rightly pointed out that had California built more dams over the last 40 years, there would have been more water stored throughout the state to alleviate the worst conditions of its recent long term and severe drought. Governor Jerry Brown helped put an effective moratorium on dam construction during his first stint as governor from 1975-83.

Yes, there are some real concerns about fish and other wildlife that must be addressed whenever new dams or reservoirs are built. But with California's human population swelling to 40 million, (up from 23 million in 1980), the lack of any significant new dam or reservoir projects in the more rain-heavy northern part of the state is beyond unconscionable.

Brown and the greens were correct that dams don't stop droughts or make it rain, but they can help make conditions less severe and avoid some economic and environmental disasters. Now the problem is the massive rain coming all at once. But the lack of enough dams is again making the problem worse. The Oroville Dam has simply been doing too much of the work for too long. More dams and reservoirs as well as systems to recharge depleted underground aquifers "might have retained some of those heavy flows on the Sacramento and other rivers this month. Even a tiny percentage would make a huge difference when drought once again hits," said opinion writer Dan Walters in an article for the Sacramento Bee.
"And that brings us back to America's general infrastructure crisis and President Donald Trump's promises to launch a massive infrastructure improvement effort. He and we may not think a lot about dams in that context, but we should since the greatest infrastructure building period in modern U.S. history was all about dams."

Overzealous environmentalists and Democrats are mostly to blame for inaction, but not completely. Capitalizing on Republican President Richard Nixon's signing of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, animal rights groups used that new weapon to block several key California projects like building the once-planned Dos Rios and Ah Pah reservoirs, raising the Shasta Dam, and building the so-called Peripheral Canal. Ecologists and economic expansionists can debate the merits of sacrificing human water needs for protecting salmon all day. But perhaps they can all agree that the state of California should have done something to cater to a population that's almost doubled in less than half a lifetime. Either the state should have enacted much more stringent usage rules long ago or done something to stem the inflow of new residents.

Another problem with plenty of bipartisan blame to go around is California's budget woes. All the above-mentioned projects are cheaper than most other infrastructure projects like building massive new roads or high speed railways, but they still aren't free. And neither Democratic or Republican governors of the Golden State have been able to keep its budgets very golden over the years.

And that brings us back to America's general infrastructure crisis and President Donald Trump's promises to launch a massive infrastructure improvement effort. He and we may not think a lot about dams in that context, but we should since the greatest infrastructure building period in modern U.S. history was all about dams. That would be the New Deal era of the 1930s and 1940s, when dams comprised the two biggest infrastructure projects of the era. They were the Grand Coulee Dam and the Hoover Dam. They both employed tens of thousands of workers, provided irrigation for new farmland, and produced enough electricity to power entire regions of the country. More than 70 years later, all three of those things are still needed.

As President Trump now faces what may be tens of thousands of infrastructure project requests, the current emergency situation in California should put dam and reservoir building efforts front and center. That might seem like a no-brainer to non-politicos, but politics are definitely a potential barrier. With California not likely to ever vote for a Republican presidential candidate in the foreseeable future, anything other than emergency aid from the White House might also never come. And President Trump has already threatened to cut federal funding to "out of control" California in an interview with Bill O'Reilly earlier this month.

Infrastructure shouldn't be held hostage by politics, but who's naive enough to believe it isn't?

In medicine, the first rule is "do no harm." And when it comes to building and rebuilding America, the first rule should be to avoid the worst disasters. Whether it's the Oroville Dam or collapsing bridges like I-35 bridge in Minneapolis 10 years ago, there are a lot of potential disasters that need to be on the top of President Trump's building plans. If the new president is truly the non-politician he often claims to be, addressing California's water fiascoes will indeed be infrastructure job #1.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/13/californias-oroville-dam-disaster-is-a-wake-up-call-commentary.html
 
1.- The cost is certainly not cheap, when you factor the externalities, burning coal next to a city was cheap, using lead in gasoline was cheap too. And once a dam runs its course, you need to build another dam elsewhere and the locations are limited in nature.

2.- Or it wouldnt be as crippling if Californians managed their water with more responsibility.

Rod, we have no choice but to build dams. There is no way to get food and water for 300 million people in the U.S. without significant fresh water supplies provided by dams.

Desalination is not an option. It at best provides for an expensive diversification for a small margin of water use in coastal cities. That's it.
 
In their defense it's a complicated, unprecedented issue. They've also got to work with and get approval from counties/cities downstream as well as from the supremely incompetent Department of Water Resources(DWR).

There's a lot of blame to go around, but to argue that the structural integrity of the infrastructure isn't part of the problem is fucking asinine.

Seems to me like the damage was caused by the insane flow more than a pre-existing glaring structural weakness of the spillway itself.
 
Overzealous environmentalists and Democrats are mostly to blame for inaction, but not completely. Capitalizing on Republican President Richard Nixon's signing of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, animal rights groups used that new weapon to block several key California projects like building the once-planned Dos Rios and Ah Pah reservoirs, raising the Shasta Dam, and building the so-called Peripheral Canal. Ecologists and economic expansionists can debate the merits of sacrificing human water needs for protecting salmon all day. But perhaps they can all agree that the state of California should have done something to cater to a population that's almost doubled in less than half a lifetime. Either the state should have enacted much more stringent usage rules long ago or done something to stem the inflow of new residents.

Yep. Couldn't even raise the Shasta Dam, which goes against Rod's claim that liberals have nothing against maintaining and improving the current water supply system.
 


Has Trump actually said anything to this effect or are we extrapolating the comments of online trolls? There's no doubt that California is throwning a collective tantrum over the election and while you might punish a tantrum throwing child by putting them outside for five minutes, you definitely don't leave them out on their own overnight.
 
That dam is fucked. This is going to be a major catastrophe. There's too much water and not only are we lacking the infrastructure to handle it, the infrastructure we have is failing.

Oh, and Oroville and surrounding areas are about to see a full week of rain beginning Thursday... and the record level snow pack has yet to start melting.

There's only going to be MORE water coming.
Yeah I'm pretty certain as well that this dam is fucked. If the surrounding soil, creeks, streams, rivers, and estuaries weren't already inundated with water the risk wouldn't be as high. I think these cocksuckers at the DWR need to just come out and say that worst case scenario is every city from Oroville to Sacramento will be under multiple feet of water- either from the dam breaking, more rain plus continued spill off from the dam, or the snow pack melt. There's got to be a better than 50% chance at this point of significant flooding.

And we're talking about just one dam out of multiple that are already at full capacity or will be through more rain or the snow pack melt.

I live in the central valley near Sacramento and will definitely keep my eyes up north but also to the many reservoirs to the east.

At worst we're talking many millions of people being evacuated and possibly hundreds of deaths(depending on how many listen to the calls for evacuation). Oh and not to mention billions of dollars in damage. Think hurricane katrina- except manmade and mostly preventable.
 
Practically the whole eastern half of California votes red each election. Oroville is 90% white Republican ffs lmao

It's mind-blowing how idiotic these party politics people truly are

Exactly. I'm from Redding. Whenever I'd meet people outside California they'd straight-up assume I walked through Hollywood to get to school and never seen a cowboy in my life. While Redding has become more metro, it's still a city of 125k total and Red Bluff, Corning, Central Valley, Burney, etc... are anything but liberal. I think there's still something like Latino 8%, 1% African American, 3% Native, 2% Mong/Loatian. F'n Cowboy Breakfast is a city holiday for god's sakes, LOL.
 
Seems to me like the damage was caused by the insane flow more than a pre-existing glaring structural weakness of the spillway itself.
I'm not sure about that. They're releasing just 2/3rds the amount of water per second as the record rate in history. Downstream is said to support 150,000cfs as well. The reason they're not releasing more is the very real threat the entire hillside gives way.

Maybe you should look up the before/after shots because it shows a relatively small hole turn into a 300x50x50ft hole in less than a day.
 
Has Trump actually said anything to this effect or are we extrapolating the comments of online trolls? There's no doubt that California is throwning a collective tantrum over the election and while you might punish a tantrum throwing child by putting them outside for five minutes, you definitely don't leave them out on their own overnight.
He'd be foolish to ignore this. First of all the damn is owned 20% by the Army Corps of Engineers, which means the feds are on the hook for 20% of any issues. Next is he's already been contacted by the state Representative from the district whrre the dam is located- and he's a Republican. Not to mention I'm almost 100% certain Butte was a red County during the presidential election so he'd be alienating his supporters over a potentially massive catastrophe.

Time to be a big boy, President Trump. We know Jerry Brown is a piece of shit, and a criminal imo, but man up and take care of your country.
 
He'd be foolish to ignore this. First of all the damn is owned 20% by the Army Corps of Engineers, which means the feds are on the hook for 20% of any issues. Next is he's already been contacted by the state Representative from the district whrre the dam is located- and he's a Republican. Not to mention I'm almost 100% certain Butte was a red County during the presidential election so he'd be alienating his supporters over a potentially massive catastrophe.

Time to be a big boy, President Trump. We know Jerry Brown is a piece of shit, and a criminal imo, but man up and take care of your country.


I agree with all of that but those tweets made it sound like he's talked of withholding federal support. Is that actually the case?
 
I agree with all of that but those tweets made it sound like he's talked of withholding federal support. Is that actually the case?
The district's congressmen(a Republican who's been in contact with Republican house leaders) keeps pointing toward the fact that the dam is 20% federally owned. At the very least the feds should be obligated to take care of that portion. I suppose he could keep FEMA from helping out, but if millions are displaced and no federal relief comes in there will be many more millions of non-partisan pissed off people over a president who showed zero compassion for fellow Americans. Given the already massive media spotlight on him it could be similar to Bush's Katrina response but a lot worse.
 
Rod, we have no choice but to build dams. There is no way to get food and water for 300 million people in the U.S. without significant fresh water supplies provided by dams.

Desalination is not an option. It at best provides for an expensive diversification for a small margin of water use in coastal cities. That's it.

1.- Yes, there is no choice to build dams to get food and water to people, not to create golf resorts in fucking Palm Springs or to grow Almonds and Pistachios in the fucking desert.

2.- Desalination is quite an option for water for human consumption in coasts, which account for like half the population of the US.

3.- Im not saying that all dams must be destroyed, but simply that the answer to water shortage is simply build more dams, is an oversimplification and doesnt addresses the crisis of the PRESENT, it just kicks a can further down the road.
 
But, but...I thought 'self serving' was a conservative value?

220px-The_Virtue_of_Selfishness,_1964_edition.jpg

I would say selfishness when applied properly is a good thing.

For example I think Americans need to be take an attitude of group selfishness....we all need to put what's best for America above every problem the world has. We need to treat America as our "self" and then be "selfish" with our policies.

We have veterans on the streets and decaying infrastructure everywhere but somehow have the money for pet projects
 
The district's congressmen(a Republican) keeps pointing toward the fact that the dam is 20% federally owned. At the very least the feds should be obligated to take care of that portion. I suppose he could keep FEMA from helping out, but if millions are displaced and no federal relief comes in there will be many more millions of non-partisan pissed off people over a president who showed zero compassion for fellow Americans. Given the already massive media spotlight on him it could be similar to Bush's Katrina response but a lot worse.

??? I'm confused by your response. I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't answer what I'm asking. Are you trying to sidestep my question?
 
??? I'm confused by your response. I agree with what you're saying but it doesn't answer what I'm asking. Are you trying to sidestep My question?
Whatever he has said is irrelevant. He's already proven to go back and forth on his comments so his tweets really mean fuckall.

But as far as I'm aware he's only mentioned withholding funds from sanctuary cities, not the state itself. And even then he's only just threatened, not acted but we'll see.
 
1.- Yes, there is no choice to build dams to get food and water to people, not to create golf resorts in fucking Palm Springs or to grow Almonds and Pistachios in the fucking desert.

Yes, we would all live in a more environmentally-friendlier world without golf courses, Disneyland, professional sports, and other recreational activities which waste both energy and water.

We could all live in the salt mines, too.

With very few exceptions, most of us choose not to. And that includes most liberals.

2.- Desalination is quite an option for water for human consumption in coasts, which account for like half the population of the US.

Not really. The article I linked to earlier said that such desalination options were providing very little of the percentage of water that anyone is using. For the San Diego plant, just seven percent of the city's needs. They're too expensive.
 
Yep. Couldn't even raise the Shasta Dam, which goes against Rod's claim that liberals have nothing against maintaining and improving the current water supply system.

Keep preaching about human needs when agriculture is 80% of water usage, and of the remaining 20% i wish to know how much is going to raising pastures in the desert.

domestic_water_use_per_capita_by_state_2005_1042_656_80.jpg
 
Back
Top