DOCUMENTS AND LINKS

Flood Control
1. Chart: American River Historic Flood Table, as of 2001
2. Chart: A Comparison of Hypothetical Flood Estimates, 1998
3. Chart: Design Flood Performance of ARWP Flood Control Projects
4. Galloway Report, Floodplain Management into the 21st Century; Report of the Interagency Floodplain Management Review Committee
5. Floods of 97- FOR Memo on the Army Corps of Engineers’ 1997 ARWP Hydrology Analysis
6. Historic Flows vs. Flood Control Projects (with FOR memo)
7. FEMA Levee Certification Procedures
8. Natomas Flood Depth Map
9. Risk & Liability Hearing Testimony - FOR Memo on Floodplain Management

Seismic Concerns
1. Seismic Safety at Auburn Dam- An Evaluation of Geotechnical Studies (Finnerty)
2. Accompanying Figures for Finnerty Report (above)
3. Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Response to Seismic Studies

Public Opinion
1. ADC Poll- Public Support for Auburn Dam Taxes
2. Press Coverage of Renewed Interest in Dam After Hurrican Katrina

Click on the links below to view recent articles regarding the proposed Auburn Dam Project.

• 1990 Report, Seismic Safety at Auburn Dam: An Evaluation of Geotechnical studies (text) and figures, Anthony Finnerty, Ph.D.

• 1996 Report, USGS Open-File Report, Review of Seismic Hazards associated with the Auburn Dam Project, Sierra Nevada Foothills, California

• 2006 paper, Reservoir-Induced Seismicity (RIS), Laird Thompson, Ph.D.

California Water Plan Update 2005 Volume 4 – Reference Guide Public Review Draft The Promise of Regulated Deficit Irrigation in California’s Orchards and Vineyards

By David A. Goldhamer, Water Management Specialist, University of California, and Elias Fereres, Professor, IAS-CSIC and University of Cordoba, Spain

Agriculture uses about 75 percent of all the developed water in California, and the expanding population and efforts to maintain or improve animal habitat and stream flows will require even more water in the future. With no significant expansion of water supplies and possible partial loss of existing resources, agricultural water use is being seen by many as a potential water source. The recent controversy over the transfer of water from agriculture in Imperial County to the City of San Diego illustrates this issue. Some maintain that Imperial growers could free up the amount of water in question by improving their surface irrigation management, such as waste less water by reducing deep percolation below the crop root zone or end of field runoff. The growers argue that there are limits to how much water can be saved by reducing irrigation water losses (also called improving application efficiency) and point to reduced planting acreage, increased salinity, and associated loss of production and agricultural jobs as likely effects.

Statewide, California growers have steadily improved their application efficiency over the last couple decades. Moreover, deep percolation and runoff are usually only temporary losses on a small scale (the field being irrigated). Although quality may be degraded by fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals, water lost to deep percolation eventually moves into the water tables where it can be pumped and reused (see Figure 1). An exception to this is when it enters a salty, perched water table, usually making it unusable, or when it flows to the ocean. Runoff is often collected and reused on another field on the farm. Recognizing this and the fact that most California growers have become highly efficient in their irrigation management shows that there is limited opportunity to free up net water by improving application efficiency.

Additionally, the use of California Irrigation Management Information System (see “Quantitative Irrigation Scheduling Does Work”) data has allowed growers not to over-irrigate crops, minimizing the loss of water to deep percolation. Generally a near-linear relationship exists between ET and crop production because transpiration, the movement of water vapor from the interior of the leaf to the surrounding atmosphere and the uptake of carbon dioxide, the basic building block required in the process of photosynthesis, both use the same plumbing at the leaf surface—the stomata. These are very small openings usually located on the undersides of leaves that regulate the movement of both water vapor and carbon dioxide. Indeed, it’s often said that the plant trades water for carbon and if the goal is to maximize carbon uptake to achieve high yields, potential transpiration must be met. Thus, limiting transpiration (water stress) has usually been associated with production losses and lower grower profit.

Fate of Irrigation Water
While this is true for most field and row crops, it’s not necessarily true for trees and vines. Lack of water (water stress) reduces the vegetative growth of plants but doesn’t necessarily result in reduced fruit yield in trees and vines as it does with most field and row crops (cotton being an exception). Thus it is possible to reduce transpiration of trees and vines without reducing yield. We have conducted RDI research on the major tree crops in California—pistachio, olive, prune, and citrus—and identified numerous species where significant amounts of water can be saved without having a negative impact on production or grower profit. We found that while the relationship between gross fruit yield (mean of three years) and applied water was fairly linear (see Figure 2a) relationship between gross revenue ($/acre) and applied water was completely different (see Figure 2b).

Many of the RDI regimes had higher gross revenue than the full irrigation control while applying from 4 to 8 inches less water.

This was due to significantly lower creasing (higher fruit quality), especially with early season stress. This illustrates a major difference between row/field crops and tree/vine crops. Almond trees present the best opportunity to couple RDI with adjusted horticultural management not only to reduce water consumption but also to address two critical health issues facing the industry—agricultural burning and dust during harvest. Again working in the southern San Joaquin Valley and supported by the California Almond Board, we tested various RDI regimes ranging from water savings of 15 to almost 50 percent of potential orchard ET. We showed that mild stress over most of the season can be imposed with little negative influence on production and substantial water savings. However, a potentially more significant finding involved the RDI regimes that imposed moderate to severe preharvest (April to July) stress. These strategies reduced vegetative growth (canopy size) and individual kernel weight but had no influence on fruit load; the smaller, more compact trees had higher fruiting density (nuts per unit of canopy volume) than fully irrigated trees. Thus, one could increase the planting density (trees/acre), thereby increasing total nut production (number/acre) compared with conventionally planted and irrigated trees. The downside is that fruit size would be lower, which may somewhat decrease the value of the nuts. On the other hand, the need to prune trees would be much less, reducing the amount of pruning and burning. Growers currently mechanically shake trees at harvest and leave the nuts on the ground to dry for 7 to 10 days before they are swept up. The sweeping and mechanical collection can create dust and related health concerns. Our research showed that preharvest stress can accelerate hull splitting, allowing for an earlier harvest, which benefits growers in a number of ways; earlier hull split allows the nuts to dry more completely on the tree prior to mechanical tree shaking. We believe that this presents the option of growers harvesting directly from the tree into nut catching machines, as is done currently in pistachio and prune orchards. This would eliminate the dust and other problems associated with nuts drying on the ground, such as ant damage and soil-borne bacteria infection.

Winegrapes is another crop where stress can substantially improve fruit quality. The irrigation of winegrapes was against the law in some European countries, such as Spain, until recently because of real or perceived negative irrigation-related impacts on wine quality. Some stress, however, is beneficial as it can reduce berry size, thereby increasing the ratio of skin to fruit volume. This is important to wine makers since the skin contains constituents important in wine color, taste, and chemical make-up.

Using our research and that of others and conservative estimates of current practices in orchards and vineyards, we have calculated a range of water savings for the major tree crops and winegrapes in California. These estimates are based on RDI regimes that do not reduce grower profits. One tree crop, walnuts, is excluded since we have no data showing that RDI can be successful although further research is planned. Water savings on the low end, those that we believe are currently achievable, total about 1 million acre-feet (see Table 1). If we include RDI adoption coupled with adjusted horticultural practices, such as the higher almond density plantings and improved, more precise methods of identifying tree stress, we believe that 1.5 million acre-feet can be saved.

We are currently conducting research on developing electronic sensors that can accurately detect tree stress thus allowing the management of RDI strategies with precision and without risks. Today’s farming economy has resulted in the steady conversion of relatively low-value row crop land into higher profit orchards and vineyards. This process only enhances the scale of potential RDI adoption.

Achieving the promise of RDI depends on growers recognizing the benefits of managed water stress. This requires demonstrating on a large scale that RDI can be successful in their terms—profits are maintained or increased—and that the higher level of irrigation management required is within the ability of on-farm personnel. We believe that RDI in orchards and vineyards could be a key component in this state’s effort to meet the growing demand for water and at the same time, preserve and protect permanent crop production.

JUNE 2006

California Extreme Precipitation Symposium
Friday June 23, 2006

The symposium’s purpose is to focus attention on extreme precipitation events in California watersheds — events responsible for producing floods and placing life and property at risk. For more information contact American River Watershed Institute.

The Western States Trail Ride
The Tevis Cup:Â 100 miles One Day Ride
August 5, 2006

The Western States Trail Ride, popularly called the Tevis Cup Ride, is the oldest modern day endurance ride, having been held annually since 1955. As such, it has been the inspiration and model for the most challenging endurance rides worldwide.

Government Offices

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Central Valley Project
Established in 1902, the Bureau of Reclamation is best known for the dams, powerplants and canals it constructed in the 17 western states. The Auburn-Folsom South Unit of the Central Valley Project was designed to provide a new and supplemental water supply for irrigation and municipal and industrial needs and to alleviate the badly depleted groundwater conditions in the Folsom South service area. The primary feature of the unit was to be the Auburn Dam, Powerplant, and Reservoir, located on the American River, near the town of Auburn, about 40 miles northeast of Sacramento.

Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA)
In the heart of the gold country, the Auburn State Recreation Area (Auburn SRA) is made of over 35,000 acres along 40 miles of the North and Middle forks of the American River. Once teeming with thousands of gold miners, the area is now a natural area offering a wide variety of recreation opportunities to over 900,000 visitors a year.

Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

United States Geological Survey (USGS)

Recreation Groups (Local)

Western States Trail Foundation
The Western States Trail Ride, also known as the Tevis Cup Ride, is the oldest modern day endurance ride, having been held annually since 1955. As such, it has been the inspiration and model for the most challenging endurance rides worldwide.

Western States Endurance Run
The Western States Endurance Run is one of the oldest ultra trail events in the world and certainly one of the most challenging. The run is conducted along the Western States Trail starting at Squaw Valley, California and ending in Auburn, California, a total of 100 miles.

Auburn Endurance Capital
Auburn is home to some of the most challenging and historic endurance events on the planet. The vast network of roads and trails in the Auburn State Recreation Area and surround Sierra Nevada make Auburn a destination for endurance athletes of all levels and interests.

Folsom-Auburn Trail Riders Action Coalition (FATRAC)
In 1988, FATRAC was created to work with the California Department of Parks and Recreation in developing and constructing a system of trails within the Folsom Lake and Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA) near Sacramento.

Recreation Groups (Non-Local)

American Whitewater
The mission of American Whitewater is to conserve and restore America’s whitewater resources and to enhance opportunities to enjoy them safely.

Public Awareness Groups

Protect American River Canyons (PARC)
Protect American River Canyons (PARC) is an Auburn-based grassroots educational group dedicated to the preservation of the wilderness, recreational, cultural, and historical resources of the North and Middles Forks of the American River and its canyons for all to responsibly care for and enjoy. PARC sponsors the Confluence Festival, outings and river cleanups.

Taxpayers For Common Sense
Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) is an independent voice for American taxpayers. TCS is dedicated to cutting wasteful government spending and subsidies in order to achieve a responsible and efficient government that lives within its means.

American River Conservancy
The American River Conservancy conducts conservation, education, and stewardship programs to protect and enhance native fisheries, vanishing plant and animal communities, scenic vistas, cultural heritage and recreational lands within the American and Cosumnes River watersheds which lie in the foothills of the eastern Sacramento Valley.

American River Watershed Institute (ARWI)
The American River Watershed Institute studies how the landscape affects water resources. They provide (directly and via sponsorship) research, research tools, maps, and other technical information to various water and power agencies in California as well as other groups interested in the American River watershed.

Canyon Keepers
The purpose of the Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA) Canyon Keepers is to maximize the enjoyment, knowledge and safety of people who use the North and Middle forks of the American River Canyon within the boundaries of the Auburn State Recreation Area.

Sierra Club - Motherlode Chapter
The Sierra Club has Chapters throught the United States and Canada that offer opportunities for local involvement, activism and outings. Join Sierra Club members on various outings. Learn more about the natural history of your area.

Friends of the River (FOR)
Friends of the River is dedicated to preserving, protectin and restoring California’s rivers, streams and their watersheds. The organization accomplishes its mission by providing public education, citizen activist training and organizing, and expert advocacy to influence public policy decisions on land, water and energy management issues.

Pacific Institute
Founded in 1987 and based in Oakland, California the Pacific Institute is an independent, nonpartisan think-tank studying issues at the intersection of development, environment and security.

Nationwide Rivers Inventory (NRI)
A listing of more than 3,400 free-flowing river segments in the United States that are believed to possess one or more “outstandingly remarkable” natural or cultural values judged to be of more than local or regional significance.

The Auburn State Recreation Area boasts more than 100 miles of trails along the North and Middle forks of the American River. With its proximity to the city of Sacramento, it provides a unique accessible reprieve for local residents.

To keep in perspective how important recreation is we look to the meaning of the words:

re-cre-ate: To create again.

rec-re-a-tion: Refreshment of body and mind; a pleasurable occupation or exercise.

With our modern stress-filled lives, it is essential that we maintain natural places to recreate, or refresh our bodies and minds. The Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA) provides a natural environment for recreation.

Read on for a brief summary of the diverse recreational opportunities currently enjoyed in the American River canyons.

Whitewater Rafting

The North and Middle forks of the American River offer premier whitewater boating runs. The North fork offers an excellent Class IV (advanced) run in the Spring and a fun Class II run into early summer. Commercial and private boaters enjoy the diversity and beauty of the steep North fork canyon.

The Middle fork runs all summer from mid-May through the end of September. There is an excellent Class IV run as well as a mild Class II section.

Mountain Biking

Mountain biking, both cross-country and downhill are extremely popular in the canyons. Popularity has continually increased over the last ten years. For specific information on mountain biking and trails you should contact the Auburn State Recreation Area office.

Local bike shops:

Auburn Bike Works

Cambria Bicycle Emporium

Hunting

Hunting is allowed in some areas and for some species in the Auburn State Recreation Area. Deer, turkey and upland game birds are open to hunting in the fall and winter. Turkey hunting is open for the Spring season. Hunting licenses are required and may be obtained from the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). For specific information on hunting you should contact the Auburn State Recreation Area office.

Gold Mining

Recreational gold mining is popular in the American River Canyons. The North and Middle forks were home to thousands of miners during the gold rush era and still provide enjoyment for recreational gold miners. Panning, dredging and sluicing are all permitted within the Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA). Contact ASRA for regulations.

Horseback Riding

Over 100 miles of hiking and horse trails wind through the steep American River canyons and along the North and Middle Forks of the American River. The most famous trail is the Western States Trail, which runs 100 miles from Lake Tahoe to Auburn, with over 20 miles in park. A map showing the trails is available from the park office.

Dam proponents claim that a reservoir at Auburn would provide more and better recreation opportunities for Californians.

Dam proponents claim that a reservoir at Auburn would provide new recreational facilities. The Auburn Dam Council, a major supporter of the Auburn Dam Project states “Recreation plans include camp sites, picnic sites, boat launching ramps and swimming areas.”

The American River canyons currently support a wide variety of recreational activities.

The mild climate in the Auburn area provides for year-around outdoor exploration. Auburn State Recration Area (ASRA) currently supports more than 900,000 annual visitors enjoying whitewater boating, hiking, trail running, mountain biking, horseback riding, fishing, gold mining, hunting and off-highway vehicle (OHV) use.

In addition, Auburn is proclaimed to be the “Endurance Capital of the World”, hosting a variety of extreme endurance events including the 100 mile Western States Run and the equestrian Tevis Cup Ride.

The Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA)

The land set aside for the Auburn Dam Project is known as the Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA) and is managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). ASRA is currently undergoing a planning process to update the Resource Management Plan, this plan will determine how California State Parks will continue to manage recreational use within the take-line of the Auburn Dam. ASRA encompasses 42,000 acres and 48 miles of river corridor along the North and Middle forks of the American River.

In the 1991 American River Water Investigation Report (an Auburn Dam feasibility study) the Army Corps of Engineers stated:

Because of reasonable proximity, accessibility, high scenic quality, regional uniqueness and excellent whitewater, the Upper North and Middle Forks of the American River and surrounding Auburn SRA are a unique and irreplaceable entity to both the growing Sacramento area and Northern California alike.

It is unlikely that a reservoir in Auburn would provide a recreation pool equal to that of the unspoiled canyons.

It is important to understand what a reservoir would do to the canyons, especially a reservoir utilized for flood control purposes. There would be between 100 and 300 feet of water fluctuation each year. Imagine it is late winter or early spring (depending on the year), the water in the reservoir has been drawn down to provide space for the coming rains and snowmelt. The beautiful canyon you once enjoyed is a muddy mess. The distance from the water level to the highwater mark is 300 feet. In this swath of mud and sludge there is no plant life, for it has been drowned. There are no animals, as the riparian ecosystem has been destroyed. The once vibrant canyon has become a storage ditch. If there were no other options for flood control, water supply and power generation, this devastation could be rationalized. Fortunately, we have options - viable options that are sustainable.

“The largest and least expensive source of water to meet California’s needs is the water currently being wasted in every sector of the economy. The potential for conservation and improved efficiency is so large that no new dams or reservoirs will be needed for the foreseeable future, even with expected growth in population and the state’s economy.”
-The Pacific Institute

Fact:
Building a dam is the most economically inefficient way of dealing with California’s water supply issues.

Basic Economic Theory:
Individuals are driven by marginal incentives and self-interest.

A Feasible, Brighter Future Based Upon This Simple Theory:
According to the Pacific Institute, total water demand in California could DECREASE by 8.5 million acre feet per year by the year 2030.

How? Not by investing a ton of capital in new facilities, but merely by introducing cost effective policies and alternative practices that induce homeowners, businesses, and farmers to use water more efficiently.

A Quick Overview Of The Options:

HUGE capital investment in a multi-purpose Auburn Dam that would provide, at best, an additional 360,000 acre feet of water a year.

OR, invest a small amount of money in policy, education, and farming changes that could decrease demand by as much as 8.5 million acre feet per year.

What would the responsible tax-payer decide?

What Kinds of Changes Are We Talking About?

That’s a good and valid question. “Policy” is a very broad, and sometimes scary, term. It is understandable that one might say, “Well great, policy changes are a lot cheaper and more effective than capital investment in new infrastructure, but are we talking about policies that infringe on anyone’s rights, are unfair, put someone out of business, or have other hidden costs?”

And here is the amazing, beautiful answer: No.

Conserving water is efficient and COST EFFECTIVE!!!

Water Conservation in Urban California:

Individual Homeowners:

There are many ways that government and educational programs can encourage people to reduce their demand for water and save money, without changing lifestyle or the services obtained from their current water use.

The following are examples of some of the most potentially impactful changes for individual homeowners:

Goverment policy that either requires or gives rebates toward the purchase of Low Flush Volume Toilets to replace older, less efficient models. If all inefficient toilets in California were replaced, reductions in water demand in the year 2020 could be as high as 200,000 acre-feet per year. This takes into account the increasing population, and is in addition to the savings that existing government requirements will achieve by 2020!

Government policy that either requires or gives rebates toward the purchase of more efficient washing machines. If all current residential washing machines in California were as efficient as the average of the efficient models currently on the market, water use in California homes would be reduced by another 110,000 acre-feet annually.

Comprehensive audits and proper maintenance for residential leaks, with a target leak rate of 4.2 gallons per household per day, would result in a total savings of 240,000 acre-feet per year.

A Note on The Cost-Effectiveness of Such Policy Changes, Price Incentives, and/or Educational Programs :

In the long run, people save much more money on metered water bills (now a statewide requirement) and on reduced energy usage than they spend on the initial capital investment required to replace and/or repair their existing infrastructure.

There are also other benefits to society not directly felt by the individual homeowner, such as lower wastewater treatment costs that result from using and polluting less water, and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that result from using less energy.

The Commercial and Industrial Sector:

The California Department of Water Resources, in their last Water Plan Update, created a series of Best Management Policies for water suppliers and customers. Although well-meaning, these Policies (BMP for short) were created as suggestions, rather than regulations; the result being that many of them were not actually implemented. Making these BMPs a requirement, rather than voluntary, could lead to substantial savings in water demand and usage.

Also, the commercial and industrial sectors could conserve the most significant amount of water using techniques similar or identical to those that should be applied by individual homeowners, including low flush volume toilets and more efficient dishwashers and washing machines.

Water Conservation In The Agricultural Sector:

In many cases, irrigation techniques that are less water-intensive are also more cost effective, and produce better crops. As a result, the percentage of crops in California to be irrigated by these more efficient methods is continually increasing.

Government-sponsored educational campaigns geared towards farmers, as well as more realistic water pricing, could lead to even more substantial savings by the year 2030. In it’s “Waste Not, Want Not” report, the Pacific Institute estimated that improved irrigation and water-use efficiency in California’s agricultural sector could reduce demand by as much as 5.8 million acre-feet by the year 2030. The following is an example of one of the most promising of such irrigation improvements:

Regulated Deficit Irrigation: Showing especially promising results in its first few years of testing, this irrigation technique can save significant amounts of water without negatively affecting yield or profit. Developed for use on trees and vines, it can be utilized by California’s pistachio, olive, prune, citrus, and grape (wine) farmers. Some farmers have even found that regulated deficit irrigation improves the quality of their product, for example producing a larger percentage of pistachio nuts with shells already partially opened. (A desirable characteristic for pistachio consumers.)

Reservoir Induced Seismicity and Other Potential Problems with the Auburn Dam

2006, Laird Thompson, PhD Geologist
e-mail: lbtfracs@mindspring.com

Question: What is Reservoir Induced Seismicity (RIS)?
Answer: It is the creation of earthquakes resulting from having built a dam and impounding water behind that dam. The weight of the water combined with its’ lubricating effects create conditions that initiate earthquake activity where no earthquakes are expected if there were no dam and reservoir.

Question: Do all dams create RIS?
Answer: Yes. Most dams and reservoirs create only very small earthquakes because they are built in seismically stable areas, but careful monitoring has shown that even these dams do produce RIS. These small earthquakes do not cause damage and may not be felt by people living near the reservoir.

Question: There are faults all over California. Isn’t this a problem that is the same everywhere in the state?
Answer: Faults occur in much of California, but not all faults are active. Maps of California Seismicity and Earthquake Hazards show that the Central Valley and western Sierra Foothills are much less prone to earthquakes than much of the state. In fact, from an earthquake hazards perspective, this is historically the safest part of the state.

Question: If the western Sierra Foothills are so seismically stable, then we don’t have anything to worry about, right?
Answer: Under normal circumstances, that is true. However, there is an old, relatively inactive fault system called the Foothills Fault System that does run through the area. It runs right under the proposed Auburn Dam and it also runs under the Oroville Dam which suffered a magnitude 5.7 earthquake in 1975.

Question: But there are many dams in place along that fault trend and none of them have had major earthquakes. Why would the Auburn Dam be any more problematic than these other dams?
Answer: There are about 8 dams that have been built along the Foothills Fault System. The Oroville Dam is the only one that suffered a large magnitude earthquake. However, if one takes the cross-section of the canyon in which the dam was built; the height of the dam; and the weight of the impounded water just behind the dam (say within 2,500 feet of the dam) and compares all these dams, you get the following trend:

Oroville Dam (the largest weight of water): 5.7M earthquake in 1975. The lake holds 3.5 million acre-feet water.

New Bullards Dam: about 60% of the Oroville Dam weight. The lake holds 1 million acre-feet of water.

Don Pedro Dam: about 28% of the Oroville Dam weight. The lake holds 2 million acre-feet of water.

Folsom Dam: about 28% of the Oroville Dam weight (the Folsom Dam is also not along the main trend of the Foothills Fault System). The lake holds 1 million acre-feet of water.

New Exchequer Dam: about 23% of the Oroville Dam weight. The lake holds 1 million acre-feet of water.

New Melones Dam: about 21% of the Oroville Dam weight. The lake holds 2.4 million acre-feet of water.

Pardee and New Hogan Dams: only about 2% of the Oroville Dam weight. The lake behind Pardee Dam holds 0.2 million acre-feet of water.

Clearly, none of the other dams and reservoirs have created conditions of equal scale to the Oroville Dam. Thus it is perhaps not surprising that none of these other dams has suffered such a significant earthquake.

Question: Using this “yardstick”, how would the proposed Auburn Dam compare to the Oroville Dam?
Answer: The Auburn Dam would create about 80% of the Oroville Dam and reservoir weight. This is based upon water storage of 2.3 million acre-feet, which is the size reservoir under construction when the 1975 Oroville earthquake occurred.

Question: There may still be geologic differences between the possible faults at the Auburn Dam and the Oroville Dam. Can you say that the Auburn Dam would be 80% as likely to create a major earthquake?
Answer: No – this argument is too simplistic. The area of the proposed Auburn Dam has been extensively studied from a geological perspective and numerous small and medium-scale faults have been mapped there. Additionally, there are some rock units in the dam area that are very mechanically weak and create an extra hazard of significant slipping should an earthquake occur. With all these obvious geological features, it would make sense to perform a comprehensive engineering and earthquake hazard study of the Auburn Dam site, especially considering the original study was completed almost 30 years ago and the science of seismology has made significant progress since then.

Question: O.K., so there is an earthquake hazard at the Auburn Dam site, but we can still build a safe dam there, can’t we?
Answer: Maybe. The original dam design would have withstood a magnitude 1.6 earthquake. After the Oroville 5.7M earthquake, the Auburn Dam was re-designed to withstand a 6.5M earthquake. However, certain assumptions were made about expected offset on the dam should it suffer such an earthquake. One assumption was that there would be only about 9” of offset or movement in such an earthquake. New studies, however, have raised the significant possibility that the dam might suffer 2-3 feet of offset. Should this happen, no engineer could guarantee that the dam would remain intact. The most recent look at the earthquake safety issues posed by Auburn Dam was issued 10 years ago in 1996 by the U.S. Geological Survey in Open File Report 96-0011.

Question: So, if the dam did fail with a 600 foot deep reservoir behind it, how bad could this be for Sacramento?
Answer: A U.S. Bureau of Reclamation report completed in 1980 says that within 5 minutes of the Auburn Dam failing, the Folsom Dam would see a surge of floodwater that would crest at 12 feet deep. The Nimbus Dam area would eventually be under 70 feet of water and even the State Capitol building would be standing in 40 feet of water in 6.5 hours.

Question: But all this is speculation. We could also speculate that the Auburn Dam would survive such an earthquake. If the dam did survive, then earthquakes aren’t really a problem are they?
Answer: The earthquake hazard creates some “hidden taxes” with the Auburn Dam project for those living in Auburn and other near-by communities such as Granite Bay. The Auburn Dam would change the earthquake hazard rating for the area and local residents would have to buy earthquake insurance for their homes. Insurance companies would raise the rates for this insurance based on the elevated hazards. Additionally, local schools, hospitals and emergency facilities would have to be retro-fitted for the increased earthquake hazard. Increases costs such as these could easily run into the millions of dollars.

Question: But if the Auburn Dam is not built, Sacramento would be subjected to flooding by the American River anyway, right?
Answer: When completed in the near future, the present work program by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation at Folsom Lake will provide flood protection for any storm system equivalent in size to any that has occurred since they started keeping weather records in Sacramento. In fact, it will protect against a storm 50% larger than has been experienced in the area – including the one in 1986 that resulted in significant flood damage in the Sacramento Area.

Question: Then why do we really want the Auburn Dam?

The Auburn Dam Project, a component of the Central Valley Project, was halted in 1975 following a 5.7 earthquake near Oroville. Experts believe that the Oroville earthquake may have been a result of Reservoir-Induced Seismicity (RIS).

In 1996 USGS reviewed the seismic-hazards associated with the Auburn Dam Project. The Open-File Report is the most recent government report reviewing the seismic hazards of the Auburn Dam Project. The potential of a major earthquake induced by a dam near Auburn is real. If the dam were to fail due to stresses associated with an earthquake we would have a tragedy far exceeding the potential floods the dam is meant to protect us from.

Following the 1975 Oroville earthquake, the Engineering Department at UCLA conducted a study modeling a failure of Folsom Dam. The study predicted 250,000 fatalities resulting from a dam failure. Keep in mind this was in 1975 when Sacramento was considerably less populated. In 1980 the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) completed a study assessing inundation following a complete collapse of a dam at Auburn. If a dam at Auburn were to fail due to seismic activity, water would reach Folsom Dam in 5 minutes and peak in a little over an hour. The water from a failure of a dam would not cause a calm pool, but would carry debris from structures, streamside foliage and sediment deposition. Evacuation would be difficult due to the sudden onset and lack of forecasting. Residents evacuating to rooftops to await rescue would not be an option, as the water depth in many areas would reach 40+ feet. This potential flooding would be far worse than a 250 or 500-year flood event with more casualties and a larger inundation area than a natural flood event.

Considering the potential threats of reservoir-induced seismicity, resulting in a dam failure, it would be wise to ask the following questions?

1. How likely is it that the structure would induce an earthquake?
2. If an earthquake is induced, how large could that earthquake be?
3. How much potential surface displacement could an earthquake cause?

How likely is it that the structure will induce an earthquake?

Some background on earthquake faults is necessary. If a fault has shown activity or displayed movement within the last 100,000 years then geologists considered it to be ‘Active’. The earthquake at Oroville in 1975 was a result of activity on the same fault system that the Auburn Dam would span.

In studies performed after the 1975 Oroville earthquake, paleosalts spanning the fault in question showed significant displacement across the fault. By aging the paleosalts geologists are able to discern when the displacement occurred. The fault shows activity within the last 100,000 years.

Another sign of seismic activity is significant bulging of the earths crust, five inches of movement per decade. In addition, there are microearthquakes along the edges of the bulging. According to Woodward-Clyde consultants (hired by the BOR following the Oroville earthquake), if the Oroville earthquake in 1975 were Reservoir Induced then a dam at Auburn would create a 30% probability of inducing an earthquake.

If an earthquake is induced, how large could that earthquake be?

Agencies responsible for assessing seismic hazard determine a Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE). The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) determined that building the Auburn Dam could result in a MCE of 6.5 magnitude (M) while the USGS believed that a 7.0M MCE was more accurate. The difference between a 7.0M and 6.5M earthquake is significant. A 7.0M earthquake is three times more intense than a 6.5M earthquake. The BOR chose to ignore the USGS findings and base their modeling and ultimately their dam design on a MCE of 6.5M.

The current design for the proposed Auburn Dam is a Gravity Dam designed to withstand the MCE of 6.5M. Considering how many lives are at risk it would be prudent to plan for a worse case scenario. Considering that the countries leading authority on seismicity determined a MCE of 7.0M it appears irresponsible for BOR to base their modeling on a MCE of 6.5M.

How much potential surface displacement?

“Estimates for surface displacement ranged from about one inch (BOR), to nine inches (Woodward-Clyde and the California Division of Mines and Geology-CDMG), up to a whopping three feet (USGS).”

- Earthquake Threat at Auburn Dam, Headwaters May/June 1990
Bill Cross and Tony Finnerty

Reports and additional links on Seismic hazards.

Senator Dianne Feinstein and 5th District Congresswoman, Doris Matsui have been diligently working on securing funding for Sacramento flood protection. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment sponsored by Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) that would provide $22.305 million to strengthen California levees and flood control.

Last fall, Congress provided $41.005 million for the highest priority levee restoration and flood control projects in fiscal year 2006.

Specifically, Senator Feinstein’s amendment provides $22.305 million for the following projects:

South Sacramento Streams - $6.25 million

The project in southeastern Sacramento County includes building 12 miles of floodwalls and constructing 13 miles of levee improvements. The completed project improvements will provide minimum 100-year protection to over 100,000 residents.

Sacramento River Bank Protection - $11.3 million

The project north of the City of Sacramento provides erosion control bank protection for the Sacramento River Flood Control Project levees. One hundred eighty-three actively eroding sites on levees banks have been identified, 29 of which are considered to have a high potential for failure during the next high water event.

AmericanRiver Common Features - $3.255 million

This project includes levee improvements along the lower American River and Sacramento River. When complete, these improvements will protect the 50,000 residents of Rancho Cordova in eastern Sacramento County as well as 400,000 City of Sacramento residents downstream.

DeltaIslands and Levees Feasibility Study - $1.25 million

This long term feasibility study to conduct the Delta Risk Management Strategy identifies the levees and islands in need of repairs beyond the short term authorized CalFed work.

Short-term Delta levee assessment (CALFED 180-day study) - $250,000

This funding goes to continue coordination and initiate design data collection on projects related to the recommendations found in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta Report to Congress (180-day report).

The primary argument in favor of building the Auburn Dam is that it will provide “500 year flood protection” for the Sacramento area. Proponents also claim it would relieve pressure on downstream levees.

Levee repairs and Folsom Modifications are needed first…NO MATTER WHAT:

The Problem with that argument is this: Regardless of how many dams there are upstream releasing water into the levees during a flood, they still need to be able to handle the large amounts of controlled releases that could currently destoy them. Also, even if Auburn is upstream letting out water gradually into Folsom, Folsom will need to be able to let water out faster than its current capacity for doing so if Auburn is to have any helpful affect whatsoever.

Bottom line? Levee repairs and Folsom Modifications are needed first…NO MATTER WHAT. So why spend money on more studies and deliberations, when there is a solid, clear need that keeps getting ignored? Lets fix the immediate, obvious problem first. THEN we can decide what added protection is desired.

500 Year Flood Numbers Are Not Realistic!

As for that later decision about added flood control, and 500 year protection, there are several different ways of analyzing and projecting flood risks. The 500 year number refers to a modeled probability based upon statistical extrapolation.

Translation? The flow level associated with a 500 year event is a flow level that has never been seen in recorded history, but that in one particular mathematical model has a projected 1 in 500 chance of occuring in any given year.

The most important thing to know about this modeled probability is that the Army Corps of Engineers themselves, (the government agency responsible for creating the statistical model), admitted in their report that the model was NOT MEANT TO EXTRAPOLATE, WITH ANY ACCURACY, FLOW FREQUENCIES BEYOND THOSE WITH A 1 in 200 CHANCE OF OCCURING.

Why? Because the mathematics break down beyond an interval that is more than twice the length of the available data set. And the available data set happens to only be 100 years long.

An Alternative Approach to Estimating Flood Risk:

So, perhaps the Corps’ frequency model isn’t the best way to try and predict the maximum flood that can be reasonbly expected from the American River Watershed. (They even say so themselves!)

An alternative is to use what is referred to as the Galloway method, in which public projects are built based upon what is called the “standard project flood.”

Had this analytical method been applied in New Orleans, their system of flood protection wouldn’t have come near standard project flood requirements, and planners may have then had the chance to avert disaster.

Why? Because in determing the standard project flood, analysts take the local weather system and data into account, placing the worst possible storm directly above the watershed and determining what the resultant runoff would look like. New Orlean’s levee and dam system was not built to withstand a Class 4 or 5 Hurricane, even though those storms appear in the Gulf every few years!

In contrast, Northern California only has one, very consistent storm to worry about: the “Pineapple Express.” Unlike the hurricanes the rack the Gulf every few years, it is an extremely predictable storm that we have years and years of historical data on, and it is the ONLY storm that could possibly hit California and cause the floods that we worry about.

There is no good reason to believe that the Pineapple Express will dump 80% more rain into the American River than ever recorded, which is the amount that would be needed to cause a supposed “500″ year event. Even with global warming concerns, many experts believe that the Pineapple Express will become more frequent, not bigger.

The Fiscally Responsible Citizen Would Focus on Folsom and Levee Modifications, Rather Than on an Unnecessary, Costly Dam:

Auburn Dam would have several negative affects on top of drowning two incredibly valuable and beautiful river canyons. One, it would cost an incredibly large amount of money to build. Two, geologists at the USGS believe there is a lot of unresolved uncertainty surrounding the very dangerous possibility that the dam’s location along a fault system could trigger a devastating earthquake. Three, its water would be too limited and expensive to have hopes of paying off the dam any time in the near future.

With environmental and economic losses so big, is it really worth building a structure based upon a projected risk that is an unreliable estimate at best? Perhaps we should look instead to the numbers that can be trusted:

Sacramento is NOT currently protected against a 200 year event, and can be with repairs to levees and Folsom Dam. Bottom line? Levee repairs and Folsom Modifications are needed first. Why spend money on more studies and deliberations, when there is a solid, clear need for levee improvements and modifications to Folsom dam?

Public Safety Justifications for an Auburn Dam are Unreliable and One-Sided

Proponents of the Auburn Dam cite public safety, or more specifically flood control, as the main reason for the dam’s necessity.

There is inconsistency in this reasoning

It ignores advise by the National Research Council that existing flood frequency numbers are too conservative, speculative and quite possibly unrealistic (read more), while at the same time ignoring warnings from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) that estimates for the probability and magnitude of a large earthquake being induced by an Auburn Dam are not conservative enough, insufficiently researched, and irresponsible (read more).

The probability that a dam in Auburn causes a catastrophic earthquake may be equal to or greater than the true probability that the American River ever produces flows high enough for the dam to have been necessary!

(The statistics on either side of the public safety argument are “a wash.”)

And, if the dam were to fail due to stresses associated with an earthquake, we would have a tragedy far exceeding the potential floods we now face.

IN SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Reclamation’s approach to flood control is unrealistic and overly conservative.

Their approach to a very real earthquake threat is disregarding and irresponsible.

There Is No Good Reason To Build A Dam in Auburn:

When designing publicly-funded facilities meant to safeguard against natural disaster events such as flooding and earthquakes, much care is taken to ensure that they are able to withstand not merely an event that was previously recorded at its location, but also the largest magnitude event that might ever occur. This is done because one (reasonably) wouldn’t want to spend a lot of money and time building something that may have been good enough to hold up in the last event, but that in ten or twenty years might get destroyed by a larger, as yet unseen, event.

It follows that much of the decision-making process in deciding whether or not tax-funded protection should exist, and how strong or large it should be, involves quite a bit of assumption, scientific hypothesizing, and finally, uncertainty.

In deciding whether or not to go forward with a project like the Auburn Dam, the question then becomes: Whose reasoning and assumptions are most consistent, reliable, and persuasive?

On these three counts, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Public Safety argument in favor of the Auburn Dam is consistent only in that it fails miserably.

They cite numbers that have been described both by the Army Corps of Engineers and the National Research Council as speculative and quite possibly unrealistic in order to justify a certain level of necessary flood protection.

Then they turn around and ignore pleas from the United States Geological Survey to take the potential threat and size of a reservoir-induced earthquake much more seriously.

Let’s see: using overly conservative, unrealistic numbers on one side of the argument, then using the least conservative and riskiest numbers available on the other. This inconsistency should cause one to think that perhaps a solid reasoning and philosophy is lacking, replaced instead by a determination to add yet another grand dam to California’s waterways.

Is a dam on the American River the best thing for the people of California? Auburn Dam proponents claim that a multipurpose dam would provide much-needed flood control for Sacramento as well as provide water for future development.

As responsible citizens, it is our duty to look at both sides of an issue in order to make informed decisions for the welfare of the community.

Following are our responses to the three main justifications given for the Auburn Dam: Flood Control, Water Supply and Recreation:

Public Safety Is Better-Served By Focusing First on Folsom Modifications and Levee Repairs

Flood Control: Folsom Dam modifications, combined with weather forecasting technology and levee repairs, can provide Sacramento with enough protection to guard against the largest floods to be reasonably expected from the American River Watershed.

More importantly, levee repairs and some Folsom modifications are needed regardless of whether or not an Auburn Dam exists. The fiscally responsible citizen should focus on obtaining the funding and planning for these essential public projects first.

Earthquake Threat - The Auburn Dam would create an earthquake threat with a greater probability of occurring and possibly more catastrophic consequences, than the very flood it is meant to control.

Water and Power Can Be Met with Friendlier, Cost-Effective Alternatives

Building new facilities and infrastructure is the most inefficient way of handling water and power supply issues. Inexpensive legislation, policy shifts, and farming techniques could decrease demand in 2030 by 8.5 million acre feet per year!

On top of that, there exist alternative capital investments to a dam that cost less initially and pay off more in the long run. With so many alternatives that are less costly and more effective, water and power supply cannot be taken as a serious justification for building Auburn Dam.

Auburn Dam Would Result in the Loss of a Valuable Recreational Resource

Proponents of the Auburn Dam Project claim that a reservoir at Auburn would provide more and better recreation opportunities for Californians. It is unlikely that a reservoir in Auburn would provide a recreation pool equal to that of the unspoiled canyons.

Auburn Dam Watch is an effort to provide accurate, up-to-date information about the social and environmental issues that shape the debate over constructing the Auburn Dam.

Spear-headed by All Outdoors California Whitewater Rafting, contributions include input from local scientists and environmental groups concerned with the well-being of California’s resources and people.

THE LATEST NEWS:

Auburn Dam Cost Study Assigns a Price Tag in Exceedence of 6 Billion Dollars

Auburn Dam the Focus of Recent Congressional Panel

Auburn Dam Is Not The Answer

The debate over the Auburn Dam can be divided into three main areas of concern: Public Safety, Water and Power Supply, and Recreation.

All of these concerns can be addressed with alternatives that are less costly, more efficient, and environmentally sustainable:

Public Safety Is Better-Served By Focusing First on Folsom Modifications and Levee Repairs

Considering the earthquake threat posed by Auburn Dam, as well as the fact that Folsom Dam modifications and levee repairs are cheaper, faster-built and sufficient for any reasonably-expected future flood, public safety is better-served by focusing on these immediate concerns.

Read More…

Demand for Water and Power Can Be Met with Friendlier, Cost-Effective Alternatives

Building new facilities and infrastructure is the most inefficient way of handling water and power supply issues. Inexpensive legislation, policy shifts, and farming techniques could decrease demand in 2030 by 8.5 million acre feet per year!

Read More…

Auburn Dam Would Result in the Loss of a Valuable Recreational Resource

The American River canyons currently provide a recreation outlet for close to one million visitors per year. A dam at Auburn would significantly change the quality and type of recreation opportunities available.

Read More…

Flow (Flood) Numbers and Estimates

The Numbers:

• 500 year event: a 1/500, or 0.002 probability that the American River produce flows of ~520,000 cfs, which is 80% greater than any historically-recorded flow.
• 250 year event: a 1/250, or 0.004 probability that the American River produce flows of ~400,000 cfs, which is 50% greater than any historically-recorded flow.

How The Numbers Were Calculated:

• Corps of Engineers, NRC, and The Bureau of Reclamation all put forth different frequency estimates.
• Corps of Engineers used mathematical computer model… took 100 years of stream flow data and plugged it into the model. Model then generated frequency estimates both for those flows and flows never before recorded.
• Parameters Assigned: NONE!

The Variables That Affect Real Flows:

• Precipitation, current water levels, current snowpack
• Size and existence of Pineapple Express storm
• Global Warming
• Reason to believe these (storm size and global warming effects) should or shouldn’t have a limit on them???

Earthquake Numbers and Estimates

The Numbers:

• 2 to 30% chance that filling a reservoir at Auburn would trigger a large quake. This translates to a 0.02-0.30 probability, or a 1/50 chance.
• Need to know the percent chance that this resultant quake is then >6.5, or big enough to create displacement > the Bureau’s estimated 5 inches. (The new gravity dam is based on these numbers.)
• Finally, what is the percent chance, then, of dam failure?
• It may still be bigger than 1/500!!
• USGS warns of a greater degree of uncertainty than the Bureau is basing its estimates upon.

The Variables That Effect Quake Size and Occurrence:

• Water Weight (related to depth of reservoir)
• Fault Activity- Oroville suggests the faults are active
• Draw-down and refilling of reservoirs has been linked to reservoir-induced seismicity.

*THE POINT: AN EARTHQUAKE AS A RESULT OF AUBURN IS MUCH MORE “LIKELY” THAN THE FLOODS THE DAM IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US FROM!

The following chronology is taken from The Auburn Dam Reader. The Reader was compiled by Sierra College ECOStudents and their advisor Joe Medeiros. The Chronology includes studies and events relating to the Auburn Dam Project.

• October 1949 - Construction begins on $100 million Folsom Dam.
• January 1953 - Flood waters caused by heavy rains wash out part of the Folsom construction site and break through a levee on the Feather River.
• March 1955 - Army Corps of Engineers begins operations at completed Folsom Dam.
• January 1956 - Folsom Dam is credited with saving Sacramento from devastating floods over the 1955 Christmas holiday season.
• 1957 - Decision 893: Reclamation and CA Department of Fish and Game agree as part of the Folsom water rights permitting process to maintain minimum flows in the Lower American River ranging from 250 to 500 cfs (234,000 acre ft/yr) to provide for the anadromous fish population (salmon, steelhead, trout and shad).
• January 1958 - Out of concern that Folsom Dam provided inadequate flood protection a $65 million flood control dam is proposed for the American River.
• January 1959 - Legislation is introduced in Congress to authorize the $145 million Auburn Dam, which would provide 1 million acre-feet of water storage. Project is not approved at this early stage and goes back for changes.
• January 1963 - Legislation to authorize a $415 million Auburn Dam and canal system is introduced in Congress.
• October 1963 - White House agrees to include the Auburn Dam and canal in President Kennedy’s annual budget request, but final approval is delayed two years.
• August 1965 - Congress sends to President Johnson a $425 million authorization bill for Auburn Dam and Folsom South Canal.
• September 1965 - President Johnson signs the authorization bill into law as an addition to the Federal Central Valley Project. (Public Law 89-161). The authorization included the Auburn Dam, Reservoir and powerplant; the Folsom South Canal (FSC); Sugar Pine Dam and Reservoir; and County Line Dam and Reservoir and conveyance to be operated in conjunction with pumping from Folsom Reservoir.
• June 1967 - Design features of Auburn Dam are made public and construction begins. Folsom South Canal (FSC) construction begins in 1968.
• February 1970 - Folsom South Canal construction continues with dynamite blasts for tunnel.
• 1972 - Completed construction of the 33-foot diameter, 2,400-foot long diversion tunnel.
• 1972 - Decision 1400 – This decision grew out of hearings on water rights applications for Auburn Dam. State Water Resources Control Board established minimum flows in the Lower American River at a level higher than previously contemplated. These minimum flows vary with the time of the year from 1,250 to 1,500 cfs. The minimum flow requirements are in two parts – those for fish year-around, and those for recreation during the summer. The higher of the two requirements at any given time is the minimum flow requirement. This Decision applies to Auburn water rights only. The minimum flow required is to be maintained from Nimbus to the mouth of the American River.
• March 1973 - Sacramento County supervisor protest construction of the Auburn Dam because it would harm recreation, fish and wildlife along the American River.
• November 1973 - Environmentalists challenge the Auburn Dam in court.
• 1973 - Completed construction of two of five reaches (27 miles) of the FSC. The secretary stopped further construction on the canal to provide time for additional studies on Lower American River minimum flow problem, and to consider alternative plans for meeting the authorized water supply commitment.
• April 1974 - A federal judge orders the US Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to file a more complete environmental report on the dam.
• June 1974 - A $61.8 million contract is awarded by the BOR for the first phase of the Auburn Dam construction.
• October 1974 - A federal judge clears the way for construction of the dam, now estimated to cost $847.5 million.
• 1975 - Completed construction of 265-foot high cofferdam. Nearing the completion of keyway excavation a foundation treatment for the concrete arch Auburn Dam and powerplant.
• July 1975 - A government report says the dam could survive an 8.0 magnitude earthquake centered 50 miles east or an 8.5 magnitude quake 100 miles west.
• August 1975 - The dam site is shaken by a 5.7 magnitude quake centered 41 miles away at Oroville, on a fault previously thought inactive. Construction is suspended on Auburn Dam and powerplant until further seismic evaluations.
• July 1976 - A committee of scientists is appointed to study how the dam would withstand an earthquake.
• 1976 – 1980 - Seismic evaluations conducted by Reclamation and the State of California. Alternative plans and designs were developed and studied.
• 1980 - Results of seismic studies. The Secretary of the Interior announced a safe dam could be constructed at the Auburn Dam site, and the safest design would be a concrete gravity dam (these results and designs are still much debated). The Secretary announced, before construction could resume, the flow requirements on the Lower American River for the fishery and recreation had to be resolved.
• 1981 - Construction completed on Sugar Pine Dam and reservoir located in North Shirttail Canyon about 7 miles north of Foresthill. The earth and rockfill dam is 205 feet high with a total cpacity of 6,921 acre-feet of water. The water is piped 9 miles to the Foresthill Public Utility District for M & I purposes.
• 1982 - Studies completed by Reclamation and the US Fish and Wildlife Service indicated that if the lower American River were to be operated for optimum fishery purposes, minimum flows should be maintained at levels higher than Decision 1400.
• March 1983 - The price tag for the dam swells to $2.1 billion.
• 1984 - The President, in a letter to Senator Laxalt, announced a national water project financing and cost-sharing policy. It indicated that all Federal water development agencies would seek out new partnership arrangements with States and other non-Federal interests in the financing and cost sharing of all proposed projects. Project beneficiaries, not necessarily governmental entities, should ultimately bear a substantial part of the cost of all project development. Joint State-Federal Auburn Dam Task Force was established to review cost allocations based on benefits in order to determine the financial capabilities of the beneficiaries and to recommend contractual/organizational mechanisms for completion of the project. The Options for Auburn-Folsom South Unit prepared jointly by BOR and California Department of Water Resources (DWR) presented construction and operation options and other information related to financial partnership arrangements for the Unit. Seventeen non-Federal entities expressed an interest in participating financially in various aspects of the project, including the State which has expressed its interest in the water and power aspects of the project.
• 1985 - DWR and BOR contracted with Bechtel National, Inc. to evaluate the curved, concrete gravty dam design developed during the 1975-80 seismic studies (conducted by BOR and the State) to see if there was a less costly project, or projects, which would provide the same level of water supply, power generation and flood control.
• 1985 - Bechtel National, Inc. completed its Final Report on the Evaluation of the Auburn Dam Project. The report recommended that a substantial cost savings be made in Auburn Dam and powerplant by relocating the dam to River Mile 19.0 and adopting a new method of construction; that further investigation of the technical feasibility of the less-costly project be made; that a non-Federal water and power project consisting of a straight roller compacted concrete gravity dam (one of four types recommended) at Mile 19.0, a 300- or 400-megawatt (MW) powerplant, and relocation of Highway 49 on a bridge would be financially feasible for reservoirs ranging in size from 800,000 to 2,326,000 acre feet; and that the addition of pumped storage power generation capability might significantly improve project economics.
• 1986 - A technical group, comprised of representatives from BOR, DWR, Western Area Power Administration and Congressman Shumway’s office, completed an analysis of the Bechtel report. The Evaluation of Auburn Dam Reformulation and Bechtel Report was by BOR documenting the technical group’s recommendations. The fourth alternative of a straight-axis concrete gravity dam at the existing Mile 20.1 site is recommended. This design has no inherent drawbacks. Ample experience exists with dams of this type and size. It is the same design selected by the Secretary in 1980 as a result of the extensive geologic, seismic and design studies which followed the Oroville Earthquake of 1975. The site conditions are well known, as most of teh foundation work is complete. The EIS for Auburn Dam includes a conventionally placed concrete gravity dam. Even though it is the slightly more expensive of the four alternatives recommended by Bechtel, it remains economically attractive. If Reclamation were to build the dam, this is the design and site recommended.
• February 1986 - Major storms in northern California caused record floodflows in the American River Basin. Peak outflows from Folsom Reservoir of 130,000 cfs exceeded the maximum designed flood reservoir releases of 115,000 cfs. (In spite of torrential rains from February 7 - 12, Folsom is releasing only 4,400 cfs during this time and Folsom is maintained at approximately 710,000 acre feet. Cofferdam at Auburn is filling fast. February 18th, cofferdam is breached and partially washed away. Folsom has to increase discharge to 131,000 cfs, placing downstream levees and cities at great risk.) At the request of BOR and DWR the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) conducted a special study to review and update teh hydrology of the American River and determine areas of potential flooding to review and update alternative flood control measure provided to BOR in 1974 and 1982 and described in previous studies and to reevaluate teh flood control benefits of the alternative measures.
• 1987 - The Special Sudy on the Lower American River, California prepared by the Corps for BOR and DWR indicated that the February 1986 flood was about a 70-year event and that Folsom Reservoir is capable of controlling only about the 63-year flood to 115,000 cfs. In addition, the curently estimated peak flow for the 100-year flood along the Lower American River is about 230,000 cfs. Preliminary findings showed the following: 1) An area of Sacramento containing over 25,000 people and having a value of flood damageable property of about $15 billion is estimated to have as low as a 63-year level of flood protection. 2) Most of the measures reviewed in the study could achieve increases in the level of flood protection along main-stem American River to about 100 years, and 3) High levels of protection (i.e., 200 years or better) could be achieved by construction of new storage upstream of Folsom Reservoir. Note the 1995 Corps study showed three options:

1. Folsom Modification - 1 in 180 year protection, $248-365 million
2. Folsom Stepped Release - 1 in 235 year protection, $543-587 million
3. Auburn Detention Dam - 1 in 500 year protection, $934 million

• 1987 - H.R. 1605 cited as the Auburn Dam Revival Act of 1987 introduced on March 12 by Mr. Shumway. The bill amended the September 2, 1965 Act and the Flood Control Act of 1970. Two specific changes were: 1) The Auburn-Folsom South unit shall release a minimum of 1,200 - 2,000 cfs to the Lower American River, and 2) included provisions for non-Federal cost sharing in the project.
• 1988 - Representatives Vic Fazio and Robert Matsui introduced a $600 million plan to build a flood control dam and downstream levee repairs. Bill was not heard in committee and was reintroduced in 1989.
• 1988 - Corps began a feasibility study on a dry dam (flood control only), an expandable dam, and a minimum pool dam.
• 1989 - Corps study reverted back to a dry dam only study, as no local sponsor was willing to pay for the additional cost of an expandable dam or the minimum pool dam.
• 1989 - Sacramento area water agencies began efforts to sponsor a multipurpose Auburn Dam study that would parallel the Corps study.
• 1990 - Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) endorses a flood control dam that could be expanded in the future to provide water and power. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) studies the feasibility and desirability of a National Recreation Area in the American River Basin which will include the lands in the Auburn Reservoir takeline.
• 1991 - Corps released the draft of their dry dam study recommending 384-year protection. This 494-foot high Rolled Compressed Concrete (RCC) dam would be capable of holding back 894,000 acre feet of flood flow.
• 1991 - The local sponsor of a multipurpose Auburn Dam requested the BOR to conduct a feasibility study for a multipurpose Auburn Dam. This is a 4 - 5 year, $5 million effort. (American River Watershed Investigation)
• 1992 - Corps authorized to do extensive levee repairs around Sacramento.
• March 1992 - Bush administration does not support Auburn Dam component of Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill. Administrative agencies do not concur. Project sponsors (Fazio and Matsui) press ahead. The new bid for a $638 million flood control dam dies in the House (270 to 140) over concerns about cost and the dam’s potential expansion for water storage. Since then…
• $5 million to BOR for American River Water Resources Investigation
• $13 million to Corps for American River Watershed Investigation (began in 1988) now completed as the American River Watershed Project
• February 1993 - BOR determines sections of American River (North and Middle Forks) to be inundated by Auburn Dam to be Eligible for National Wild and Scenic River status, finding numerous ORV’s (Outstandingly Remarkable Values) in each of eight categories.
• October 1995 - House Energy and Water Development appropriations bill for 1996 projects little funding availability for projects that involve large outyear mortgages. John Zirschky, acting assistant secretary of the Army for civil works voiced “given the current budget situation, it seems unlikely that funding ceilings will permit the Army to budget for the Auburn Dam”.
• October 1995 - Environemental Protection Agency (EPA) concludes that the construction of Auburn Dam is “environmentally unacceptable” because of potential devastation of the prisitine American River canyon. Congressman John T. Doolittle, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Water and Power delivers an ultimatum to SAFCA. He dictates to them that he will not support any flood control project for Sacramento unless it includes an expandable (multipurpose) dam at Auburn.
• October 10, 1995 - Comments due to Corps regarding American River Watershed Project Draft Main Report/DSEIS/SDEIR.
• October 12, 1995 - Corps publishes results of written comments and public hearings. A total of 1,435 written comments were received. An additional 183 people provided oral testimony at the public hearings, for a total of 1,618 individual comments. Eighty-nine percent (1,435) opposed construction of any type of dam in the American River Canyon. Seven percent (107) supported either a flood detention dam or a multi-purpose dam. The remaining 4% did not express an opinion, or raised other issues relative to the project or environmental documents.
• November 1995 - SAFCA backs a $1 billion flood conrol dam and levee project with a 7/6 vote by the SAFCA Board.
• December 1995 - BOR issues Draft Planning Report or ARWRI study area indicating projected demand for an additional 525,100 acre-feet/year needed by year 2030. Recommends two alternatives; conjunctive use and Auburn Dam.
• February 1996 - BOR issues “Completion of Studies” notice for ARWProject Supplemental Information Report.
• February 1996 - US Geological Survey report questions about whether a quake-proof Auburn Dam can be built. USGS states the 17-year old seismic studies need to be updated to include new information.
• February 1996 - Representative Thomas Petri introduces H.R. 2951 which would block federal financing of Auburn Dam. He cites “financial constraints, environmental concerns and the availability of less expensive, less environmentally intrusive alternatives”.
• February 1996 - Auburn Dam cited in “Green Scissors Report ‘96″ which identifies proposed federal spending that numerous taxpayer and environmental groups believe Congress should eliminate. The report charged that the proposed Auburn Dam is one of nearly 50 federal projects that exemplify wasteful and ecologically dangerous ideas.
• March 1996 - Clinton administration proposes drastic reductions in Federal cost-sharing (from 75% to 50%) of flood control projects. Increases local share of Auburn Dam from $240 million to $475 million. Lieutenant General Arthur E. Williams, Chief of the Corps, rejects the Corps (Sacramento office) proposal for the Auburn Dam and recommends proceeding with levee repairs along the American and Sacramento Rivers and implementing river inflow gauges and an emergency flood warning system for Sacramento.
• March 1996 - Auburn Dam’s chief sponsor, Representative John Doolittle joins with Representatives Robert Matsui, Vic Fazio and Richard Pombo in an attempt to present a united front before a House subcommittee.
• March 1996 - BOR schedules five workshops for questions/discussions of draft ARWRI reports. ARWRI reports provide only two alternatives for meeting long-term water supply needs of the ARWRI study area; 1) Conjunctive Use and 2) Auburn Dam.
• April 1996 - BOR schedules five hearings for comments prior to finalizing ARWRI reports.

Flood Control:
1. Chart: A Comp