>>Follow-up to 1830 <<
It is important to note that “flood control” rainfall at Oroville, where the main spillway was used, were infrequent over decades. However, when the main spillway was used at these times, the drains were showing high flows from the drains. A well sealed spillway should show much less.
The dam expert, Scott Cahill, pointed to these drain flow conditions as a key pre-indicator issue. If money was spent in properly maintaining and/or meticulous analysis and refurbishing were done properly, there should be very little drainage flow when the spillway was in operation.
In addition, a “pre-failure location” showed itself where recurring fixes to cracking were done multiple times. They had ample opportunity to address this, including any revelation of what other measures should have been taken when discovering the cause of whatever these pre-failure analysis findings revealed.
Thanks bud. It is great that some of the engineering and debunking forums were able to dig up the construction records and plans.
I did a project once where I was able to show the Owner that we still had the job photographs, the as-built records, and all the documentation for a project we had built the bulk of sixty years prior. It helped us negotiate the new project that was integrated into the same three blocks of commercial historic structures.
Something I’ve noticed about human nature and even more in government situations, is the mindset that says, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”, which often means although some are vaguely aware that an underlying, latent problem may exist, it isn’t dealt with until its effect is manifested in some dangerous or catastrophic way.