Oroville Dam-- 2005 CA & water Districts testified spillway safe

[JayDubP]

Seems like in 2005 the State of CA and a group of water districts told the Feds that the Emergency Spillway was safe from erosion and that it did not need to be covered in concrete-- because these groups would have had to pay for the work... fast forward 12 years and the question I have is now who will end up paying for this work... Feds may reject any request to label this a "disaster" or to provide disaster relief $$ because it may be caused by the St of CA's negligence... and you know the water districts, especially those in S California, will not want to pay anything...

Here is link to the article..

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/1...-12-years-ago/

[gitt]

The Cal Water Project is strictly for flood control purposes. Why would So Cal want to pay for something that does not benefit them directly? Let the dam fail. Brown's intent was to raise the water capacity in these reservoirs and it was not for flood control.

[Digger]

Wasn't it last month Jerry Boy told the Pres to piss up a rope over his (Trump's) illegal immigration policy, environmental policy, this policy, that policy . . .
Now who's laughing

as spineless marabou leech. . . .

[winxp_man]

Wasn't it last month Jerry Boy told the Pres to piss up a rope over his (Trump's) illegal immigration policy, environmental policy, this policy, that policy . . .
Now who's laughing

as spineless marabou leech. . . .

Was going to say the same. I guess we will see what happens now with the tension that has been built between the state and feds.

[Darian]

Whatever happened to Brown's "rainy day" fund?? It's been raining a lot and no expenditures. Why have it if you never intend to use it???

[JasonB]

I would hope that whatever feud the current president may have with our governor could be kept in check, the safety and security of the people and property in and around Oroville shouldn't be held hostage to some circus show of political muscle. They are both in positions of great responsibility to many people, including those who may not agree with their politics. We should NOT be encouraging further partisanship, nor following in their lead when they start going on insecure power trips. Not that it should matter one tiny bit, but I am pretty certain that a large number of residents in the area in question voted for trump. Emergency funding and matters of national security should not be on the bartering table, nor should they be held out as some form of punishment. We have other means to haggle out political differences. You can take that as critical of the gov, or the prez, or both... either way, it matters not; we shouldn't be encouraging. They should man up on this one, there will be more than enough other opportunities for them to have petty, insecure arm wrestling matches
JB

[johnsquires]

Exactly, Jason. The POTUS is the president (hopefully and lawfully) of ALL Americans. I suspect he will do the right thing.
And you are correct that the area in question is a conservative-leaning area, which flies in the face of some of the very hateful and disgusting comments by folks on Twitter and news feeds.

To address Digger's comment, anyone who is laughing in any way about this situation is direly in need of counseling.

[JayDubP]

My point is still: who is going to pay for the emergency spillway to be fixed? For the past 12 years, various Water Districts and the DWR have avoiding paying for the emergency spillway to be fixed-- they should pay for it to be fixed now PLUS the people who made the decisions to delay should be reprimanded or punished.
.
Feds should help pay for the disasters: the main spillway and the costs associated with people and property in any area flooded.
.
But it is not right to let groups not properly maintain infrastructure and wait until it becomes an emergency-- then pass the obligation onto the Feds.

[JasonB]

Jay, that is a good question. I agree with on on all 3 points as well. It's frustrating that concerns were raised, and specific improvements were demanded... and ignored. I also hope that there is some serious review on a number of protocols: from location and design criteria for any future dams, maintenance and inspection of current ones, management, and strategies for emergency. I think on this latter point, they really fumbled with the rollout on how/when to alert people to potential dangers.

My perception from the beginning was that they were taking all efforts to calm concerns and prevent panic... which in the end turned out to exacerbate evacuation chaos. Something along the lines of an early preliminary warning stage of suggesting that residents take some basic steps in preparation for evacuation IF the situation deteriorates to the point of requiring evacuation. Also taking a few more precautionary steps towards developing support infrastructure if/when an evacuation is ordered, my perception of this was that it seemed like a very abrupt 180 degree change of message and strategy from "no worries" to "urgent, evacuate NOW". In situations like this, the hope is always that we learn a few things on how to prevent more of them, and how to deal better with them when they do occur.

At any rate, while all of the fallout will take some time to sift through, I do hope that evacuee's are getting the help and support they need right now. Fingers crossed that they can all go home soon too (safely)!
JB

[RaffiB]

Wow, this is such a refreshing thread, to hear such rational and logical comments, questions and concerns and that the points are not tied to partisan politics. I was tarting to lose hope that everything was politically divided

Let's hope for the best for all those in harms way and that something gets done to fix this and deliver some accountability