The Meeting in Sacramento at DWR regarding the TRLIA Boondoggle of upgrading parts of the South bank of the Yuba River Levee waterside with a partial Slurry wall, a partial triangle sand berm, and leaving proper upgrades not done at all along with the foundation under the break site demolished by the Giant boulders dumped into the breach in 1986, was shocking enough given the fact TRLIA has led the people to believe the levee is safe. See past issue of Appeal democrat 2007 “County says levee is safe, Archer says it is not safe”, which further convinced people to buy homes in the flood plain! These officials have misled the people who rely on the officials to do the job they are supposed to do, not mislead, not fail to account for Funds, not give themselves a cushy living at the expense of safety for the people but to protect the people!
The Knowledge that was known in 2004 by Daniels Logue, Kevin Mallen, Kent McClain, of the true condition of the levee was passed off by Logue as “the Linda levee is a seepage issue”, that is an under statement. We learned this week that if we have the type of Spring runoff we had in 1986, 1996 or 1997 it is almost a foregone conclusion the Levee will again break by Flood water flowing through the Scour hole under the levee, because the New Setback levees on the Bear and Feather Rivers are stronger now and the pressure will be on the weak spot, the Yuba River South bank at Levee mile marker 0.79.
The Conditions are ripe now after the blanket of water dumped on the sierras this winter to almost insure a levee break at LMM 0.79, right behind WalMart. See below.
Another major let down has been the Appeal Democrat who apparently has a reason to not bring the true facts of the West Linda levee to the people living below the Yuba River South bank levee that protects Plumas lake, Parts of Olivehurst, Arboga and Linda, but only Len la Barth knows the reason. The Certification and accreditation of that levee is a farce to say the least because to assign those titles to a levee, the Foundation must meet 44 CFR 65.10 and a Blown apart foundation can not support a levee certification or the levee! That Levee section at Levee Mile marker 0.79 is known to officials since the 2003 Kleienfelder engineering firm inspected the levee and Assistant County Administrator Randy Margo told the Appeal Democrat’s ace reporter, Harold Kruger “it is not feasible to upgrade that section.” The appeal democrat let that stand and did not inquire as to why it was not feasible.
They left it to us to find out how not feasible the levee repair is, IT CAN NOT BE FIXED! However, though the true situation was known to Yuba County Officials, Dan Logue , Richard Webb, Kevin mallen, Kent McClain, and later Robert Bendorf and Paul Brunner, they requested Permits from the State Reclamation Board to upgrade other parts of that same levee while knowing it was for naught because the LMM 0.79 could not meet a 20 year level of safety because the under foundation was destroyed by the Boulders in 1986! This is the ultimate corruption, keeping the citizens living behind the defective foundation under the levee from the knowledge the officials knew! Here it is January 19, 2011 and it took two private citizens traveling to Sacramento to finally hear the true story of the Foundation from State Flood control Engineers, and finally report it to citizens.
Prior to 2011, I have brought the facts of certain Yuba County officials who purposely failed to account for over $405,000,000 in funds from the State tax funds and Developer Fees for levee upgrade received during the years 2004-2007 to no avail, I was arrested by the County on allegations that were improperly plead by the Sheriff and District Attorney on February 7, 2008 and it was shown by the Jury trial transcripts that the Court failed to properly instruct the jury as to the legal requirements for conviction of the charged counts by the officials. A Motions hearing was called for October 25 2010 and on October 12 My new counsel Filed motions for dismissal and on October 22, he filed more motions showing wrongdoing by the officials and my trial defense attorney. The District Attorney, Patrick Mc Grath upon court coming to session on October 25th, immediately Dismissed all charges. McGrath stated he did not want to make the children go through another trial, we knew he did not want the wrong doing by the Officials to be tried in open court during a re trial. Citizens of Yuba County know my investigation of and reporting unaccounted for funds by certain county officials, were the reason for the arrest.
During 2005 the County officials changed the Allocation schedule to reflect a high increase in elected and appointed Yuba County officials and hundreds of new titles added. The only source that would supply the funds to sustain the new titles and their substantial salary increase over the years from 2005 through now, is Levee funds in my opinion. So far, that is all I can give is a opinion because the County Officials will not permit an outside audit or accounting. The County when it finds $10,000,000 here or $ 10,000,000 there or $ 6 OR 4 000,000 over there they say it is from house fees in the plumas lake development.Sure!
The ‘Big One’ might be a flood
By Matt Weiser
mweiser@sacbee.com
mweiser@sacbee.com
Published: Friday, Jan. 14, 2011 – 12:00 am | Page 1A
Last Modified: Friday, Jan. 14, 2011 – 8:51 am
California has more risk of catastrophic storms than any other region in the country – even the Southern hurricane states, according to a new study released Thursday.
The two-year study by the U.S. Geological Survey is the most thorough effort yet to assess the potential effects of a “worst-case” storm in California.
It builds on a new understanding of so-called atmospheric rivers, a focusing of high-powered winds that drag a fire hose of tropical moisture across the Pacific Ocean, pointed directly at California for days on end. The state got a relatively tame taste of the phenomenon in December.
The team of experts that developed the scenario can’t say when it will happen. But they do say it has happened in the past and is virtually certain to strike again.
“This storm, with essentially the same probability as a major earthquake, is potentially four to five times more damaging,” said Lucy Jones, USGS chief scientist on the study. “That’s not something that is in the public consciousness.”
The study aims to fix that.
A conference on the subject, ending today at California State University, Sacramento, brings together hundreds of emergency planners to discuss the worst-case storm and how to prepare for it.
The USGS is assessing a variety of natural hazards across the country. California was chosen for the latest project, called ArkStorm, because the state “has the potential for the biggest rainfall events in the country,” Jones said.
In December, an atmospheric river threw a series of wet storms at the state, breaking rainfall records in many areas across California. One part of Los Angeles County got 17 inches of rain in three days. Disasters were declared in 11 counties.
In the study, researchers used computer models and a composite of three historical storms to estimate a worst-case event: a torrent of tropical rain for nine straight days.
It amounts to a 500-year storm. In the lingo of disaster managers, that does not mean it happens only once every 500 years, but that it has two-tenths percent chance of occurring in any given year.
The Central Valley and the Sacramento region are likely to suffer the worst effects because they lie within a funnel for the state’s biggest rivers.
Such storms have happened. The primary example in the study occurred over December and January, 1861-62. Rain fell on and off for 45 days. Sacramento was inundated, and Gov.-elect Leland Stanford famously took a rowboat to his inauguration.
The researchers used soil samples to estimate that similar megastorms hit the state on at least six other occasions in the past two millenia, at 200- to 400-year intervals.
Of course, a lot has changed since 1861 – for better and for worse. Central Valley levees are generally stronger and more comprehensive now. On the other hand, millions more people and more economic activity depend on those levees.
The report acknowledges that some experts disagree with the severity of the scenario, especially in Sacramento and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Joe Countryman, president of MBK Engineers in Sacramento, who has decades of flood-control experience in the region and saw a draft of the study several months ago, said it lacked detailed analysis of reservoir operations and river flow capacity.
“As an exercise to test emergency procedures, OK. I’m not against it,” he said. “It seems to me much bigger than anything could actually be.”
But the researchers also note that none of the levees is built for a 500-year storm. The best – such as those in Yuba County’s Plumas Basin and parts of Sacramento – are built for a 200-year storm.
Potential consequences include:
• $1 trillion in damages statewide – five times worse than a massive earthquake, which likely would affect only one region.
• 1.5 million people displaced, about the same number affected by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in 2005.
• Potentially hundreds of people killed, based on the inability of some vulnerable groups to evacuate, or for help to reach them.
• Pollution from flooded wastewater treatment plants, refineries and dairies. Some sewer plants might not return to operation for months.
“For a lot of people in California, we don’t think of ourselves as being this flood-prone,” said Laurie Johnson, an urban planning and disaster recovery expert, and co-author of the report. “It’s just too difficult to comprehend.”
What should people do?
Anyone living behind levees should buy flood insurance, Jones said. Only 12 percent do currently.
Citizens can also support urban planning efforts to steer development away from floodprone areas, and support continued levee improvements.
The study estimates that upgrading urban levees to withstand the worst-case storm might cost $25 billion – a sum that pales next to the potential for hundreds of billions in storm damages.
Officials hope emergency planners use the ArkStorm report to prepare for the worst.
The next step is to develop a storm-rating scale similar to that used for hurricanes. It would assign a number to a storm based on predicted severity.
Advertisement
What people are saying..