Several cities are dependent on vulnerable levees

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-09-11-vulnerable-levees_x.htm

SAN FRANCISCO — A repeat of New Orleans' disastrous levee failures is not that far-fetched in a nation heavily dependent on the aging earthen structures to hold back floodwaters.

A prime potential trouble spot is here in Northern California, where hundreds of thousands of people live on low-lying land protected by levees. Levee networks are also prominent across the Gulf Coast, in Florida and in heavily populated areas of the Midwest along the Mississippi and Missouri rivers.

"Levees are ubiquitous," says Gerry Galloway, a civil engineer who led a blue-ribbon study aimed at updating U.S. flood management after the devastating flooding along the upper Mississippi in 1993. "There are levees that are marginal and levees that we don't know the answer to whether or not they're marginal. That's the worrisome part."

Conditions in Northern California's Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region, where the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers meet and dump into San Francisco Bay, aren't that different from New Orleans. Much of the delta was filled in a century ago for farming.

[AlCzervik]

1. yup, i live in northern california and if those levees don't get some

$$$ things will be very bad here if we have a record winter for snow. John Dolittle (R) wants money for a new dam in Auburn when it's actually levee reinforcement thats needed.

[Gunit_Sangh]

3. What you're asking for is PORK

unlike the people in Alaska who are getting $454 million for 2 bridges they don't even want.

[AlCzervik]

5. true sorry, i'm being selfish. snicker.

[hogwyld]

7. Have to agree

Hi have to agree with Northzax on this one. Not only control floodwaters at the source, but get clean hydropower to boot. Most of the land in the delta is farmland, and thus no large loss of life like in N.O.

[AlCzervik]

8. are you serious? I don't live right where a flood would happen but

if the levess broke and one did btw about a year and a half ago it would kill many people. The one that broke some time back ruined a couple of thousand acres of farm land.

[hogwyld]

9. It's just land

Yeah, I remember that, flooded about 300 acres of farmland. No loss of life. Now, if you are talking about housing developments, it's probably cheaper and better to just buy the people out. I would NEVER buy a house below water level.

[AlCzervik]

10. it was far more then 300 acres and there are people that would be flooded

out, Natomas is one of them and there are many thousands of people living there.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/new_growth/north_natomas/faq.htm

Build a dam in Auburn but flood control needs to be dealt with now.

http://sacbee.com/content/community_news/natomas/story/13517852p-14358630c.html

http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/in_the_news/full_text/view_clip.lasso?id=12467

I looked in Natomas when i moved here but decided not to buy after looking into the area.

[hogwyld]

11. Thank you

For the links. I respect your opinions, however, the politicians should have never allowed residential housing behind levees. I think it is reprehensibly shortsighted. I wish I had a one size fits all answer. But one look at the Grand Canyon will tell you that while you can put off Mother nature for a while, she will eventually win.

Cheers,

Mike

[AlCzervik]

12. you know what? I agree, houses should NEVER have been built in that area

and when i was looking there i saw the standing water and i asked about flood insurance and what flood plain they were in and i got---"Oh i'll get that and email it to you"

[hogwyld]

13. Good

You and I agree on that. It's too bad that everyone can't exercise the same amount of common sense that you have displayed. The other sheeple are afraid of asking questions and rocking the boat.

Cheers!

[shanti]

14. NONSENSE!

i live in sacramento too, and much of the new housing in natomas and elk grove/laguna creek is built ON the floodplain. if there is a flood many people will be affected. it's not just "land"!

[northzax]

6. no, you don't get it

by building the dam in auburn, we'll be fighting the water there, not in your backyard.

[tuvor]

2. But don't you see?????

bush can't control hurricanes.

End of discussion.

[DBoon]

4. Federal money for a blue state?

forget it!