THE CASE FOR AN AUBURN DAM
Joe Sullivan, President
Sacramento County Taxpayers League
February 18th will be the fifteenth anniversary of the devastating 1986 flood that came within minutes and inches of topping Sacramento's levees and flooding our valley.
The '86 flood was followed by the '95 flood that overwhelmed our local drainage systems, and the '97 flood that flanked the American River watershed, and destroyed levees north and south of the county, inundating the flood plains.
As Sacramento's flood control facilities have only about a 95-year flood capability, for the next 4 to 5 years we can be inundated by a 100-year flood. Yet, despite efforts of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) and all our local elected state and congressional officials during the 15 years since 1986, the best they have been able to do is put together a patchwork of small flood control projects that allegedly will raise the valley's flood control level to 140-years by about 2005.
This is well below the 200-year level, agreed by all to be a minimum for protection of Sacramento, and way below the 500-year protection enjoyed by all the major cities in the United States adjacent to major rivers. The Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation, SAFCA, the local elected officials, and virtually all of the people living in the flood plain agree that the best solution to protect Sacramento is a flood control dam at Auburn, with its potential for affording 500-year flood control. The only dissenting voices are those of environmental activists, and their allies outside the Sacramento region and the state of California. Although a militant minority, they have been successful in thwarting all attempts to build the Auburn Dam, thereby endangering all in the Sacramento valley.
The Sacramento County Taxpayers League believe there is a strong case for construction of a multipurpose dam at Auburn, capable of providing flood control for the valley, a stable surface water supply for an ever increasing number of inhabitants and commercial enterprises, a source of electric power for the region, and enhanced recreational facilities for all.
Had construction of a roller compacted concrete dam at Auburn been authorized after seismic studies were finished, it would have been in place by 1983 The dam would have averted the flood damage of 1986 and 1995, and provided relief from the full force of the mixed American and Sacramento River flows that damaged the levees south of the city of Sacramento in 1997.
The valley would now be protected by a dam that affords much more that the 200-year protection minimum selected in 1986.
Protected from flooding would be the lives of more than 250,000 people and safe from damage would be over $38 billion in real and personal property, along with the Capitol of the State of California.
There would be no need for government mandated flood control insurance for federally regulated home and business loans in the flood plain, which costs each affected homeowner an average of $200 a year. As far back as 1990, Calfarm Insurance estimated the yearly cost of flood insurance for the 225,000 structures needing protection at that time would be about $45 million a year, and that Sacramento's total share for the flood control portion of the multipurpose dam would be less than the cost of one year's flood insurance.
But much more than this. A multipurpose Auburn Dam, working in conjunction with the Folsom Dam and the Nimbus Dam would help meet the stream flow requirements for the American River recommended by the Sacramento Water Planning Forum last year.
In addition, the water volume in Folsom Reservoir could remain at 600,000 acre-feet during the winter, rather than being drawn down below 400,000 acre-feet, as is done now to help with flood control.
The difference in water levels would ensure availability of surplus surface water from Folsom during the winter to offset ground water pumping, the need to reduce hydroelectric power generation due to low water levels, and the restricted recreational use of the reservoir as a lake.
In addition to the Auburn Dam's capability to supply water to stabilize the Folsom Reservoir, water diversions from the Auburn Dam Reservoir could also be made to Placer, El Dorado and San Joaquin counties to augment their water supplies.
Although there are claims there is plenty of water in the Sacramento region for all, forever, such statements are an illusion.
Although we sit at the confluence of two major rivers in California, and have a substantial underground water reservoir beneath the valley, we do not have enough.
It must be understood that there are no new sources of water for the valley and foothills. We will double in population between now and 2030, and the needs of those million new people must be addressed within the reach of the water we presently receive, and what we can recycle.
For seven years the Water Planning Forum, involving stakeholders representing water purveyors, business interests, environmentalists, and the public community, including the Taxpayers League, struggled with this problem. And in the work, the deliberations, and agreements made at the end of last year, the Auburn Dam was deliberately excluded from the mix of considerations.
The decision to do this was made on the basis that the Auburn Dam was too contentious an issue, and that the environmental caucus would never sign any agreement that had an Auburn Dam of any fashion in the mix.
Worse, Cal-Fed plans, which supposedly are to have solved statewide water needs intentionally do not address any in-stream dam storage in the state. Although not broadcast, their reason is essentially the same as that given by the Water Forum, fear of environmentalist's opposition. That additional water storage facilities are needed has been obvious since the federal government approved the Auburn Dam in the 1960's.
With an Auburn Dam in place to stabilize Folsom Lake it would be a year round recreational facility, no longer affected by the winter draw-down now required by the Folsom Reservoir re-operation dictated by the shortfall in storage capability demonstrated in 1986. Prior to re-operation, Folsom Lake and its surrounding area was seeing over 3,000,000 recreational visitor days a year.
An Auburn Dam Reservoir, for its part would see over 1,000,000 recreational visitor days a year. Together, the lakes behind the dams could produce about $19 million per year in recreational money to offset part of the costs for the two facilities.
But the most important impact that Auburn Dam would have in face of the year 2001 dramatic failure in electrical supply to meet our needs, would be generation of 300-megawatts or more of environmentally clean hydroelectric power. This is enough power to supply the needs of 84,000 homes, or 4,500 new commercial facilities.
A Summary Report prepared by R. W. Beck and Associates in 1989, which was a Financial Impact Analysis of Auburn Dam on Electric Customers, related that the planning for power generation at that time was aimed at the Central Valley Project (CVP) electric users. The marketing would be done by the Western Area Power Administration, as a dependable power source enhanced by integration with other CVP resources such as Shasta, Folsom and the Trinity River Basin. The cost of the power element of the Auburn Dam project was to be financed over 35 years, with a conservative net present value calculation of benefits limited to 20 years.
The trick is to determine whether Auburn's energy is best used to offset customer's energy costs, or Western's cost of support energy. The planners believed a combination would provide the greatest economic benefits.
Environmentalist's objections to the Auburn Dam really reduce to three major complaints:
1. The flooding of about 23 miles of each of the north and middle forks of the American River which would end some white water rafting and nature trails in the deep canyons, force migration of the wildlife out of the canyons, and drown its trees and bushes and semi-rugged campsites. The premise is correct, but the mitigation is that the area around the ensuing lakes would convert to many more family accessible park-like campsites with connecting nature trails, along with greatly enhanced fishing and boating opportunities. The number of recreational visitor days to the area would double, the miles of equestrian, hiking and biking trails would be increased from 58 to 120 miles, and the 100 flooded campsites would be replaced by 280 campsites. The untouched south fork would remain the same, and still flow freely into the Folsom Reservoir. That flow is the reason for keeping 400,000 acre-ft of empty space in Folsom Lake in the winter in the event of flooding.
2. A contention the dam is unsafe due to a fault trace near the construction site. This contention is the major scare tactic used to frighten people. It is refuted by state and federal officials, who established worse case conditions for the dam's construction specifications. The Report to check is the Bureau of Reclamation Report titled: "Seismic Safety and Auburn Dam" a "Chronology on Earthquake Evaluation Studies of Auburn Dam Site." The report points out that studies of faults and seismic activities at the dam site involved the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Geological Survey, independent consultants including Woodward - Clyde Consultants, and a panel of five internationally known consultants referred to as the Auburn Dam Consultants. In addition, the California Division of Mines and Geology, and the Department of Water Resources Division of Dam Safety and their consulting boards reviewed the work and published their own findings. Public hearings were held on the design criteria in 1979. When the seismic design parameters were selected then Reclamation Commissioner Keith Higgenson noted there was "more seismic information about this (Auburn) damsite than a damsite anywhere else in the world." Secretary of the Interior, Cecil Andrus announced that: "a safe dam could be constructed on the North Fork of the American River." The new "gravity" dam, replacing the high thin arch dam originally proposed, whose strength depended on anchoring itself into the walls of the canyon, will be located at the same site originally selected. However, the new cement dam will be oriented straight across the canyon, and will depend on it inherent weight and strength for safety. With respect to the fault that concerned everybody as a result of the quake at Oroville Dam in 1975, the Corps of Engineers reported: "the dam's present alignment is outside the trace of fault F-1 in the footprint of the original arch dam."
3. The dam will not pay out. A common charge is that the water from the dam will be too expensive. The Auburn Dam will take about 10 years to complete, and the water cost may be about $113 per acre foot. The price of power from a hydroelectric power is far less than power sources generated by other means. Just watch the future activity and cost of power in California in 2001 as a gage. Its estimated that the dam's electric cost at completion will be just over 69 mills per kilowatt hour (Kidder, Peabody & Co. estimate). It will be competitive with the cost of water supplies from well and other surface water supplies at the time. It will pay out, and water purveyors are prepared to stand up to their proportional cost of the initial investment. The same contentions were made before construction of the Folsom Dam. It cost $90 million to construct, has returned well over $300 million in revenues, and is still making money.
It is time that the leaders in the state of California reassert themselves, and provide the state with the facilities and infrastructure that the people so desperately need, at costs that are affordable.
The Auburn Dam is just one of many projects needed. It is doable. But first leaders must shed the subservient position into which they have let a militant few thrust them, and rise to the expectations of those whom have elected them to represent all the people.
January 30, 2001