The chart above shows a cross section of the water flow in the Feather river near Yuba City. Notice the actual river bed (at low water) which is much lower (and much smaller) than the water surface between the surrounding levees. Also note how miniscule the area of water is in the river channel compared to the water when between the levees at full project flood capacity. According to the Army Corps. of Engineers (as per... David Ricketts USACE 1/97) Dredging the river would have a negligible effect on flood flow capacity. According to a USACE study ( as per...Lewis Whitley USACE 2/97 ) the river bed in the Yuba River is lower today than it was in 1909 (I hope to post this study soon). Our river bed is only 40 feet above sea level. For any dredging to have any effect the dredging would have to be done all the to the San Francisco Bay (thus the theoretical max we could only lower our river less than 1 foot per mile). The chart below shows how evenly the water flows south at flood stage through our area. This energy curve on the river must be maintained all the way to the the mouth of the river, and on to the S.F. Bay. Our levees are holding the designed capacity in our system, they just don't hold the water long enough. The Project design calls for the levee at Yuba City to hold a 26 foot rise for up to 9 days (source USACE Flood Plain Study 1968). The sand levees cannot hold water that long. Slurry walls will work to prevent flooding, dredging will not work to prevent flooding.
The Fallacy that we are a "Rural Community"
If you had a flood in a "rural community" and 38 people drowned (as happened here in 1955)...in a lot of truly "rural communties" that might mean everyone in town drowned! We have 100,000 real people endangered by our sand levees! (and this doesn't include tourists from New Jersey doing the 2-step on their car roofs during the flood)
The Fallacy of "maintaining" rather than "rebuilding" our levees
The USACE 1968 (30 years ago) Flood Plain Study for The Feather and Yuba River made a FATAL ERROR when they said we needed to "MAINTAIN" our Levees rather than to REBUILD them to provide the designed protection needed. see quote from that report below...
"The areas protected by Oroville and New Bullards Bar Dams have a high degree of flood protection, but are not completly free of flood hazards. The levee systems and floodways must be adequately maintained to provide the designed protection to adjacent flood plains. " USACE 1968 (We have had 4 seepage failure floods since 1955, some on "well maintained" levee's. rcm)
The Fallacy* that a Dam on the Yuba River will solve our flood problems
Our 4 previous floods have been caused by seepage related levee failures. The water level was well within the design capacity of our levees. The other fact is that the water from the Feather River backs up into the mouth of the Yuba River influencing the water level up to 4 miles from the mouth of the Yuba River. Therefore in both Yuba County floods it was primarily Feather River water, not Yuba River Water flooding the lands. (* This is only a fallacy for the types types of floods we have had in the past, for a true 100 year flood a dam would be neccessary because the project levees would be overtopped by flood waters...The USACE 1968 Flood Plain study for the Yuba and Feather River warned..."With only New Bullards Bar Dam in operation it is possible that levee overflow and severe damages could occur during a Standard Project Flood. After construction of Marysville Dam and Reservoir, all flows in the Yuba River, up to and including objective flow, would be confined within the floodway and damage would be considerably reduced.")
The Fallacy that slurry walls are only appropriate for "downtown" Yuba City
Since our terrain is so flat (the elevation at the eastern border of the city of Sutter is the 55 feet, about the same as downtown Yuba City ) a levee break miles north or miles south of Yuba City would completely flood our city. I believe if we are going to rebuild our levees we should design for a 200 year level of protection. We should use the best protection available. It is penny wise a pound foolish not to use the best system. According to USACE and USBR experts there is no known case of a levee with a slurry wall failing. And in the Yuba /Sutter/Colusa area the only levee that has not broken is the Marysville Levee system.
The Fallacy that levee rebuilding is too expensive.
Regarding the cost of doing large scale slurry wall work in our levee system. We are in a unique time in history. We have recently spent over a trillion dollars stopping the flood of Communism in the world. Since the Berlin Wall fell we have been in a "sword to plowshares" mode. I thinks it's time we declare a war on floods, to protect our own people. We can fix our levee's for the cost of a single B1 bomber. rcm) Assuming "an ounce of protection is worth a pound of cure" If we invest a billion dollars in our levee system (for a 200 year level of protection) we will save at least 16 billion over the next 200 years. The cost per person protected over a 200 year period would be a few pennys per day.
The Fallacy that environmentalists oppose levee rehabilitation
Some types of levee reconstruction require habitat destruction or disturbance. However slurry wall construction is very "environmentally correct", in fact the USACE Sacramento Flood Plan stated that the only environmental disturbance caused by the 24 miles of slurry wall construction in the American River Levee system was to the bike path on the top of the levee http://spk41.usace.mil/cespk-pd/execsum.html
Even the local environmental group "Friends of the River" supports slurry wall construction....a quote from their web site http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/newdams.html..."Levees are often the weakest link in any flood control system. As one flood control official put it, "By God, if the levees are no good it doesn't matter what else you have". Any real flood control solution would include such essential levee system improvements as...physically improving levees to lessen the possibility of breaks, and ensuring that levees are properly maintained"
And a quote from a letter to this site...
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:44:46 -0800 From: Charlie Casey <cecasey@ix.netcom.com>
Organization: Friends of the River
To: safelevee@yahoo.com
Subject: compliments on your web page
Dear Mr. Morton,
Charlie Casey here, associate conservation director at Friends of the River.
I greatly appreciate your website...."end quote
100 Year old Levees 100 Year Old FALLACIES
I recently reread parts of one of my favorite books..."Life on the Mississippi" by Mark Twain. In chapter 28 of "Life on the Mississippi" Mark Twain talks about 5 theories people had on how to control the Mississippi...
1)" Some believed in the Commission's scheme to arbitrarily and permanently confine (and thus deepen) the channel,preserve threatened shores , etc.
2. "Some believed that the Commission's money ought to be spent only on building and repairing the great system of levees.
3. Some believed that the higher you build your levee, the higher the river's bottom will rise; and that consequently the levee system is a mistake.
4. Some believed in the scheme to relieve the river, in floodtime, by turning its surplus waters off into Lake Borgne, etc.
5. Some believed in the scheme of northern lake-reservoirs to replenish the Mississippi in low-water seasons... I have had all five; and had them "bad" but ask me not , in mournful numbers, which one racked me the hardest... " end quote