Posted on 02/12/2017 4:26:47 PM PST by janetjanet998
Edited on 02/12/2017 9:33:58 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Station Name ID Elev. Date/Time Value
INFLOW OROVILLE DAM ORO 900' 02/17/2017 16:00 30036 CFS http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/getAll?sens_num=76
OUTFLOW OROVILLE DAM ORO 900' 02/17/2017 16:00 70241 CFS http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/getAll?sens_num=23
Just been reading about the St. Francis Dam failure. A lot of talk about seepage, bubbling...
So is panel 20 the main spillway?
What a mess :(
The erosion is getting awfully close to the staging area on the right.
Heaven forbid that I had to make that decision but it is what I would do. Test the backup system in a real world scenario. Problem is it failed.
But, it only failed long enough to determine that it was failing and that there might be ways to bolster it so that it won't fail too quickly in the future. Oh, and it failed long enough to move almost 200,000 people out of their homes temporarily.
I disagree... if you wanted to test it, you test it with snowmelt and a fully intact primary spillway. The dam is how many decades old? They decided to test it only when the realized they were in over their heads. Having said that, can’t turn back the clock 10 years to test it under ideal conditions... they were extremely worried about the primary spillway and decided to give it a go.
Sometimes you find yourself where you are. Historically the lake level, over 50 years, has been controllable with the regular draw down and the primary spillway. I believe that they didn’t draw down enough in late January when the storm tracks developed in the current pattern. Water greed. Here in Reno we received our total year’s precip in January and the water masters here were relieving reservoirs, in earnest, by the end of the month.
I agree for the most part, but that strategy would have been fine without spillway damage... shutting the spillway in the middle of the heaviest sustained rain of the season got them on the wrong side of the curve... if they could have run 100k CFS throughout the last big storm (which would have been pretty standard given the inflow rates), they’d have been fine. If anything, this is a call to review procedures at all dams to better prepare for failures at the worst possible time... analyze the reliability of redundancies and verify their performance if necessary and prudent. The procedures in place are assuming proper maintenance and operating condition... lacking that, the status quo has significant risk.
Agreed, regretfully.
2” of rain in the central Sierras this afternoon.
That will all come downhill eventually. I don’t know the timing of the water travel in that area.
Update thread here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3525597/posts?page=1#1
Expecting 10” of rain, warm storm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3525597/posts?page=20#20
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3525597/posts?page=49#49
H/t Rdl6989, mad as he$$, KC burke
In the b&w pic in the link below, note the water intake :
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3525597/posts?page=43#43
H/t keat
That chart is saying they will get 2x as much rain as what caused the first incident...
Save that chart!!!
Mark Finan
@kcraFinan
1h
TID now says Don Pedro will reach/exceed capacity Mon or Tue. Tuolumne River might pass flood stage in Modesto
View details ·
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.