Q. Why should I support
the Auburn Dam
Simply put, the Auburn Dam
will develop long term flood
control, water and power for
the five adjacent counties: placer, El
Dorado, San Joaquin, Yolo, and Sacramento.
The Auburn Dam is vital
to California’s future because:
1. The Auburn Dam
will protect lives. According
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Sacramento has one of the lowest
levels of flood protection of any
U.S. city of its size. Auburn Dam
will provide 500-year flood protection.
If our levees fail, over 170 square
miles of the Sacramento Valley could
be flooded. Many of the over 400,000
residents in the floodplain would
be threatened with extensive property
damage, injury, or death
2. The Auburn Dam
will provide significant water storage
capacity to augment and balance
future water needs. The
reservoir behind the Auburn Dam
will be capable of storing over
2 million acre feet of water, providing
ample storage which prevents cutbacks
and rationing during droughts saving
our citizens from a major water
shortage.
3. Auburn
Dam will provide energy in
the form of clean hydroelectric
power. It is estimated
that the project will be able to
generate up to 600 Megawatts of
electricity…energy
we will be able to sell in times of surplus.
By building the Auburn Dam
we will protect lives and provide generously
for human water needs as well as those
of fish, the Delta wetlands, and endangered
species.
Q. What will the Auburn
Dam cost and who will pay for it?
The Bureau of Reclamation
estimates it will cost three billion
dollars to build a multi-purpose Auburn
Dam.The general plan for funding the
dam calls for formation of a Joint
Powers Authority of about seven local
counties who need the dam’s flood
control protection and would also
benefit from its water and electric power
supply.
Q. Are there any less
expensive methods of flood control?
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
has developed three plans to increase
the level of flood protection for Sacramento
residents from the current 100-year level.
- THE FOLSOM
MODIFICATION PLAN calls
for the permanent “reoperation” (draining)
of Folsom Reservoir each winter
to make room for seasonal flood
flows, improvements to Folsom
Dam, and the 36 miles of downstream
levees. This plan would provide
Sacramento with 180-year level
flood protection (a 1 in 180
chance in any one year of flooding).
This plan includes lowering
the dam spillway and increasing
release capacity of dam river
outlets, implementing an advanced
warning flood plain evacuation
plan, and improving 24 miles
of downstream levees. The Folsom
Modified alternative offers
the lowest level of flood protection
of the three plans, Sacramento
could expect the highest average
annual equivalent flood damages:
$90 million.
ADC
comments on the FOLSOM MODIFICATION
PLAN
- FOLSOM STEPPED
RELEASE PLAN is
similar to the Folsom Modification
plan. It would add extensive
modifications to 36 miles of
American River levees, Sacramento
Weir and Bypass, and Yolo Bypass
levees to permit elevated releases
from Folsom Dam of up to 180,000
cubic feet per second (cfs)-a
56% increase over the current
capacity of these levees. The
Stepped Release alternative
would provide a 235-year level
of flood protection for Sacramento
(1 in 235 chance of flooding
in any one year) and have a 32%
chance of breach in
the event of a 200-year storm.
This plan does not meet the
minimum flood protection standards
for Sacramento. Average annual
equivalent flood damage has
been calculated at $80 million.
ADC
Comments on the FOLSOM STEPPED
RELEASE PLAN
- Detention
Dam would provide
Sacramento with an extremely
high 500-year level of protection
in accordance with federal
guidelines. The chance that
a 200-year flood event would
overwhelm the dam and levee
improvements is a minuscule
3%. The dam would provide a
level of protection that would
no longer require flood insurance.
Although the most expensive of the
three plans, the dam alternative
provides 1.5 times greater net average
annual flood control benefits than
the other two plans, together with
a benefit to cost ratio of 1.8 to
1. A 1991 report developed for Congress
stated, “For highly urbanized
areas such as Sacramento, a flood
detention facility is preferred
over levees. Reliance on levees
for flood protection is inherently
less safe than an upstream detention
dam.”
The Detention Dam plan would increase
water storage over the current Folsom
Reservoir reoperation plan. The
potential exists for joint flood
operation of Folsom and the flood
control dam at Auburn, adding to
the region’s available water
and power supply. The Corps has
calculated this increase in water,
power, and recreation at Folsom
to be $2.6 millin each year or $58.5
million over the life of reoperation.
ADC
comments on the DETENTION DAM
Q.
What is the environmental impact
of the Auburn Dam?
The Detention
Dam alternative would allow would allow
the discontinuation of the Folsom Reoperation
Plan. This would allow for higher Folsom
Reservoir levels which could benefit
downstream fisheries with better water
quality and colder temperatures. High
lake levels at Folsom Reservoir would
enhance the beauty of the lake and the
recreational experience. Downstream levee
improvements included in this alternative
will impact the American River Parkway.
Depending on the size of the flood event,
the dam will temporarily back up the
north and middle forks of the American
River, inundating up to 5,500 acres.
Approximately 1369 acres of the canyon
would be lost to the operation of the
project: 79% oak woodland, 8% chaparral,
6% pine forest, and 7% riverine habitat.
Mitigation and in-kind replacement for
project impacts are included in this
alternative.
Q.
Is there any earthquake related
risk to the Auburn Dam?
State and Federal agencies have studied
the eartquake potential in the area.
Dam design criteria were established
to compensate for the worst possible
scenario. On December 30, 1980, the Secretary
of the Interior Cecil Andrus announced
that a safe dam could be constructed
on the Auburn Dam site on the North Fork
of the American River. In October 1995,
the Vern Persson, Chief-Division of the
Safety of Dams, California Department
of Water Resources made a presentation
before the Bureau of Reclamation (Sacramento)
regarding the seismic
safety of the Auburn Dam. He commented
that "...the reservoir induced seismicity
has been heightened to a level of concern
that really isn't warranted here on this
project".
Q.
I don’t live in the floodplain,
why should I care about the Auburn
Dam
While you
may not reside in an area designated
as “floodplain”, it is likely
you may have friends or loved ones that
may be at risk during a severe flood.
Your support for the Auburn Dam is support
for the people who are important in your
life.
The cycles of floods and
droughts are as inevitable as seasons
of the year. The 1987-1992 drought demonstrated
the water supply vulnerability of
the state. You may recall the mandatory
water conservation measures and the rationing
of water for both resident and business
that were taken at the time. Our farmers
suffered a drastic cutback in surface
water supply and there was considerable
strain on key environmental habitats.
It is no secret that the
success of California is in large part
attributed to the safe, reliable, and
economical water supply. Our Golden State
is experiencing phenomenal growth and
our population is expected to reach 49
million by 2020. Our current facilities
will not meet public demand for water
to meet the needs of residents, farms
and industry. The California Water Plan
Update warns that the state is facing
constant water supply shortages that
could have a devastating impact on the
state’s economy.
As a water user you may
also be interest to learn that under
the Folsom Modified Plan and Folsom Stepped
Release plan, local water users are likely
to pay substantially higher pumping costs
to deliver water in perpetuity.
Q. Who supports
the Auburn Dam?
A number
of key legislators and former legislators
have supported the Auburn Dam.
|
"We
can provide all the short-term
solutions we want, but
without the Auburn
Dam ,
we will never truly solve
this region's water management
crisis." Congressman John Dootlittle
|
|
"California
faces a major shortage
in energy production and
water storage. I have
proposed many bills to
address these issues,
and remain committed to
finding the solutions
to these problems. Along
with Congressman John
Doolittle, I strongly
support such projects
as the Auburn
Dam."
Former State Senator Rico
Oller
|
|
"In
light of these critical
needs, we simply
can no longer allow
ourselves to be bullied
around by extremist
groups that oppose common
sense progress at all
costs, no matter how environmentally
friendly it may be. We
can have clean energy,
adequate flood protection,
and stave off our impending
water crisis, and we can
do this in a remarkably
clean, environmentally
friendly way. We can have
all of these things, but
we cannot have them without
the Auburn
Dam." Read Tim
Leslie's Opinion Editorial
|
|
Sacramento's County Taxpayers
League resolution of support
Sactax.org excellent information
on Auburn Dam |
Q. If Auburn Dam
is such a good idea, why hasn’t
it been built?
The
Auburn Dam project attempts to integrate
flood-control, water, and environmental
policy into a single vision for
California’s
future. Unfortunately, diverse priorities,
political gamesmanship and costs have
kept the various interests apart. State
and local supporters of the Auburn Dam
project have clung to the idea that the
federal government should build the structure
with minimal state and local contributions.
State and local environmental opposition
have been effective in creating Environmental
Impact Statement delays, and later on,
using fish and riparian concerns to create
a generalized public opposition. As the
haggling goes on, Sacramento’s
levees continue to deteriorate, areas
designated as “floodplain” are
being built and populated, and Sacramento
remains at risk for the significant loss
of life and property when the big flood
hits.
Q. Who opposes the
Auburn Dam
The Environmental
groups have been the most active opponents
of the construction of the Auburn Dam.
These groups include: Friends of the
River, Sierra Club, Taxpayers for Common
Sense, and Citizens Against Government
Waste.
