Report backs $1 billion plan to raise (Shasta) dam; agriculture, wildlife benefit

[XemaSab]

A draft report released Monday by federal officials says a $1.07 billion plan to raise Shasta Dam by 18½ feet is feasible and economically justifiable.

Raising the dam would increase the lake's storage about 14 percent, benefitting agricultural and municipal water users in the state, according to the Shasta Lake Water Resources Investigation draft feasibility report.

Raising the dam also would benefit salmon and steelhead trout that migrate up the Sacramento River by providing a more reliable supply of cold water for spawning, the feasibility report says.

But some roads, buildings and businesses around the lake would be inundated by the higher lake level, said Pete Lucero, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the agency that prepared the report.

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/feb/06/report-backs-1-billion-plan-to-raise-dam-raising/

[BlueToTheBone]

1. The last time I saw the dam and the lake

there was about a teaspoon of water in the lake. I can't imagine what they think a higher dam will do. If there's no water, it's not going to go over the top!

[FBaggins]

4. That's not how it works.

It's like saying there's no point in putting a larger fuel tank in your car because it has been empty before.

Sure, a drought can mean insufficient amounts of water to fill the reservoir, but that isn't the norm. There have also been times when the lake is "full" and they have to let additional water flow past the dam. That water is then long gone when the dry season comes and the dam releases stored water for power and agricultural uses. A larger reservoir means more long-term water storage and fewer "teaspoon" years (as in 2007).

[xchrom]

2. Huh. Interesting. Nt

[phantom power]

3. bigger stone heads?

[pscot]

9. Um, cement, actually.

[FBaggins]

5. This is actually by far the smallest of the three options that they've considered.

Some plans called for increasing the height of the dam by as much as 200 feet (tripling water storage and peak hydro power capacity).

[Nihil]

6. I bet the geologists weren't too impressed with that suggestion ...

> Some plans called for increasing the height of the dam by as much as 200 feet
> (tripling water storage and peak hydro power capacity).

The forces that they'd be playing with at that scale are mind-boggling and really
not something to be toyed with for a re-fit ...

[FBaggins]

7. You would be surprised... It turns out that isn't the case.

The dam was originally designed for that height and was cut back later (after the foundation etc. was in place).

There's no question that it would be MUCH more expensive... But not geologically unworkable.

[Nihil]

8. I am - pleasantly surprised at that!

I didn't realise that the original work had been intended for that height.

Thanks!