The Whole DAM situation (Tallest dam in US), deteriorating spillway causes lots of anxiety (UPDATE: Evacuations Ordered)

[Suppressed]

Why would this dam be a federal project?  It was built for California Water Supply and electric power.

They petitioned to have it added as a requirement of relicensing.

[Cripplecreek]

Why would this dam be a federal project?  It was built for California Water Supply and electric power.

I don't know about the dam at Oroville but a lot of dams, locks, canals etc are under the jurisdiction of the army corps of engineers. The USACE oversaw the rebuild the dam here where I live as well as one near where I grew up. In fact if I want to put in a permenant dock, I have to send plans and an application to the USACE for approval.

That said, I can't find any connection to the USACE in the case of the Oroville dam.

[Oceander]

Why would this dam be a federal project?  It was built for California Water Supply and electric power.

It requires permits from the USACE because it's affecting so-called "waters of the United States" which pretty much covers most significant water resources. 

http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdiction.aspx

[thackney]

It requires permits from the USACE because it's affecting so-called "waters of the United States" which pretty much covers most significant water resources. 

http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdiction.aspx

Thank you.  So the Feds can set minimum requirements, but there was no reason the State Agency overseeing and paying for the work could not have decided to make the emergency spillway contain more concrete farther down the slope.

[Cripplecreek]

It requires permits from the USACE because it's affecting so-called "waters of the United States" which pretty much covers most significant water resources. 

http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/Jurisdiction.aspx

Even the Soo Locks webcams are on a .mil address.

https://webcam.erdc.dren.mil/soo/

[Suppressed]

Thank you.  So the Feds can set minimum requirements, but there was no reason the State Agency overseeing and paying for the work could not have decided to make the emergency spillway contain more concrete farther down the slope.

The state agencies decided it was unnecessary and fought the request.  I suspect it was because of costs.

[thackney]

Has anyone seen discussion of this problem being partly due to attempting to maintain too high a level in the dam, given the current snow and rain conditions?

We have seen problems in Texas where it appears those responsible for flood control dams, after many years of drought, maintain too high a level in the reservoir and are unable to prevent flooding.

It is as if they retrain the operations to maintain as high a possible water level to deal with problems of water supply, then are over run by heavy rains.

[Suppressed]

Has anyone seen discussion of this problem being partly due to attempting to maintain too high a level in the dam, given the current snow and rain conditions?

We have seen problems in Texas where it appears those responsible for flood control dams, after many years of drought, maintain too high a level in the reservoir and are unable to prevent flooding.

It is as if they retrain the operations to maintain as high a possible water level to deal with problems of water supply, then are over run by heavy rains.

They were releasing the maximum amount they felt they could without further damaging the main spillway, which had a sinkhole developing.

[thackney]

They were releasing the maximum amount they felt they could without further damaging the main spillway, which had a sinkhole developing.

But when did that release start?  Should it have been at slower flows a lot earlier?  Or have they trained themselves to always first try to maximize lake level?

[Suppressed]

But when did that release start?  Should it have been at slower flows a lot earlier?  Or have they trained themselves to always first try to maximize lake level?

I think they "maximize" lake level to an extent... but the big problem was the spillway damage.

[Joe Wooten]

I don't know about the dam at Oroville but a lot of dams, locks, canals etc are under the jurisdiction of the army corps of engineers. The USACE oversaw the rebuild the dam here where I live as well as one near where I grew up. In fact if I want to put in a permenant dock, I have to send plans and an application to the USACE for approval.

That said, I can't find any connection to the USACE in the case of the Oroville dam.

No it was not a federal project. it was built by the state of California back when they were a national leader on doing infrastructure work. Since the 80's the state has abandoned infrastructure work and even quit doing maintenance on what they had in order to spend more on welfare, environmentalism and crony projects.

[LateForLunch]

They wanted the emergency spillway armored with concrete.  President Bush declined their request.

Hugh Hewitt reported that the environmental groups OPPOSED concrete as a solution.

Regardless, the State of California was the negligent party. I'm no huge fan of Bush 43 (or 41 for that matter) but the reality is that the Feds had no legal right to do anything because it was owned / administrated by Mexifornia and even though it was likely not fully up to code, the state regulatory agencies had jurisdiction. It was apparently marginally compliant with federal regulations. Since we can't blame Bush, maybe we can move on to blaming DJT. (rolls eyes)

The more cost-effective solution would have been to think long-term, ignore the idiotic ecoparanoids, approve funding to line the necessary parts with concrete and just do it. Now the cost will be much, much higher than if they had just fixed the issue before it became a chaotic mess.

But of course, that is what government (especially 'Crat dominated government) does best - create chaos, needless waste, loss and destruction.

[thackney]

hah hah Not true. The environmental groups OPPOSED concrete as a solution. As usual, they were trying simply to give a lot of criticism without having any practical, constructive, cost-effective ideas for help (to effectively throw a monkey wrench into anything that was healthy for the state's economy).

The government was warned that the Oroville Dam emergency spillway was unsafe. It didn’t listen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/13/officials-were-warned-the-oroville-dam-emergency-spillway-wasnt-safe-they-didnt-listen/?utm_term=.d366e4842902

...In October 2005, as the Oroville Dam was going through a re-licensing process, the three groups filed a motion urging a federal regulatory agency to require state officials to armor the emergency spillway with concrete so that in the event of extreme rain and flooding, water would not freely cascade down and erode the hillside. The upgrade would have cost millions of dollars and no one wanted to foot the bill, said Ronald Stork, senior policy advocate for Friends of the River, one of the groups that filed the motion....

[LateForLunch]

The government was warned that the Oroville Dam emergency spillway was unsafe. It didn’t listen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/02/13/officials-were-warned-the-oroville-dam-emergency-spillway-wasnt-safe-they-didnt-listen/?utm_term=.d366e4842902

...In October 2005, as the Oroville Dam was going through a re-licensing process, the three groups filed a motion urging a federal regulatory agency to require state officials to armor the emergency spillway with concrete so that in the event of extreme rain and flooding, water would not freely cascade down and erode the hillside. The upgrade would have cost millions of dollars and no one wanted to foot the bill, said Ronald Stork, senior policy advocate for Friends of the River, one of the groups that filed the motion....

hah hah well, you got me. That will teach me to rely on Hugh Hewitt for information like this. However, that hardly places the Bush administration at the center of the responsibility chain. The Army Corps of Engineers tossed the ball to the state, who promptly sat on it using the legal authority of jurisdiction because they didn't want to spend the money. Maybe the state b*astards were hoping that there would be a catastrophe which would then allow federal disaster-relief funding to kick in so that the state wouldn't have to pay for it.

[thackney]

hah hah Not true. The environmental groups OPPOSED concrete as a solution.

MOTION TO INTERVENE
OF
FRIENDS OF THE RIVER
SIERRA CLUB
SOUTH YUBA RIVER CITIZENS LEAGUE

http://yubariver.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/10172005_FOR-Sierra-Club-SYRCL_Oroville-Dam-Joint-Intervention.pdf

Reading through the aboved linked petition, these groups wanted the Emergency Spillway reclassified as an Auxiliary Spillway due to the operations maintaining a rather full reservoir.  With the classification as an Auxiliary Spillway, it is no longer permitted to be designed with the expected significant damage when used.  As an Auxiliary Spillway, the hillside had to be armored (concrete covered).  In the petition conclusions, page 29 of 29 they stated:

ACE required regulated design-release operational-surcharge operations would divert up to this entire flow over the ungated spillway and onto the hillside to the left of the main-service spillway. In spite of believing during the 1997 New Years Day flood that it was in hours of needing to use this unarmored “spillway without a spillway,” DWR proposes to relicense Oroville Dam without constructing an auxiliary spillway to ensure such flows do not mobilize the hillside. Intervenors (in part) seek an action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to require such an auxiliary spillway.

[thackney]

However, that hardly places the Bush administration at the center of the responsibility chain.

Absolutely agree.

Their argument was the state agency has chosen to operate it in such a fashion that the use of the emergency spillway is more likely (due to high water levels) than is justified by the term emergency.

[LateForLunch]

Absolutely agree.

Their argument was the state agency has chosen to operate it in such a fashion that the use of the emergency spillway is more likely (due to high water levels) than is justified by the term emergency.

Ah! Thanks very much for providing that clarifying information in the previous post. No doubt the leftist mass media will be silent on how the government pushed the matter down the road (resulting in ballooning costs to fix it) since the politicians and agencies responsible were likely all leftists.

I think I understand why Hewitt's program misled me, the environmental groups were in favor of fixing the spillway but apparently not in favor of covering the entire hillside with concrete as would have been required if it was reclassified. So I guess maybe they chickened out at the last minute when they found out that reclassification and armoring the hillside with concrete were inseparable which would explain why there was no further litigation from the groups to fight the state on the decision to leave the hillside below the dam (especially along the main channel) as it was (bare, erosion-prone soil instead of concrete). 

[Cripplecreek]

I've been checking with some old timers about the two dams that were rebuilt near me in the 80s. Turns out that both earthen dams breached at the concrete spillway or millrace.

Water in the ground comes up against the impervious concrete and begins to pool and flow there. In some cases water gets behind the concrete by way of a crack. In fact, modern dams are designed to leak in a controlled and monitored manner.

The one in Horton Michigan near where I grew up actually breached twice. The first time was because the century old un-maintained earthen dam simply eroded and weakened. Trees had grown up in the dam and died further weakening it and finally a storm blew down a big willow tree perched atop the dam and took out several tons of the dam and started to flow. The USACE spent the summer rebuilding the dam and that following winter it breached beside the spillway.

[Suppressed]

In fact, modern dams are designed to leak in a controlled and monitored manner.

It's funny...this was such a surprising revelation to me in grad school, it still stands out in my mind (I took some civil engineering classes to support my geology research, and as part of it we covered some dam design [which I didn't need!]).

But you're right, hydraulic pressure is a very important part of dam design, and lengthening the pathways the water has to seep through (so it dissipates the pressure) is an important component.  In fact, without accounting for this, a dam can actually be lifted upward from the pressure difference, with water flowing under it.

[Cripplecreek]

It's funny...this was such a surprising revelation to me in grad school, it still stands out in my mind (I took some civil engineering classes to support my geology research, and as part of it we covered some dam design [which I didn't need!]).

But you're right, hydraulic pressure is a very important part of dam design, and lengthening the pathways the water has to seep through (so it dissipates the pressure) is an important component.  In fact, without accounting for this, a dam can actually be lifted upward from the pressure difference, with water flowing under it.

Lots of mass moving at once doesn't always behave the way we would expect. Kind of like pyroclastic flows going hundreds of miles at high speed. Rock and dirt wouldn't flow as far as fast over the ground without riding on a cushion of air. Kinda like an air hockey table.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

It's funny...this was such a surprising revelation to me in grad school, it still stands out in my mind (I took some civil engineering classes to support my geology research, and as part of it we covered some dam design [which I didn't need!]).

But you're right, hydraulic pressure is a very important part of dam design, and lengthening the pathways the water has to seep through (so it dissipates the pressure) is an important component.  In fact, without accounting for this, a dam can actually be lifted upward from the pressure difference, with water flowing under it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teton_Dam

I don't know about lifting up, but water seepage can bring down a dam if the circumstances are wrong.

[Suppressed]

Lots of mass moving at once doesn't always behave the way we would expect. Kind of like pyroclastic flows going hundreds of miles at high speed. Rock and dirt wouldn't flow as far as fast over the ground without riding on a cushion of air. Kinda like an air hockey table.

While not directly related, I was just looking at this indirectly related page: http://imgur.com/gallery/JMMQm

It's an important consideration in the flow of glaciers, too...a very thin layer of water can allow a glacier to flow much faster.

The earth has so many fascinating aspects.  I still experience wonder and amazement.

[LateForLunch]

The issue regarding possible dam structure failure seems to focus on water tunneling under the dam's base caused by erosion. As with any large structure, its stability depends upon a consistently solid base to distribute downward stress evenly along the entire structure. A small-scale failure of even a fraction of that foundation can destabilize the weight and cause catastrophic failure along the entire structure- especially since there is shifting forward force emanating from the water behind the structure. Like a crack in a curved window, even a small collapse under the foundation at the right point could destroy the structural integrity of the whole dam. 

[Suppressed]

The issue regarding possible dam structure failure seems to focus on water tunneling under the dam's base caused by erosion. As with any large structure, its stability depends upon a consistently solid base to distribute downward stress evenly along the entire structure. A small-scale failure of even a fraction of that foundation can destabilize the weight and cause catastrophic failure along the entire structure- especially since there is shifting forward force emanating from the water behind the structure. Like a crack in a curved window, even a small collapse under the foundation at the right point could destroy the structural integrity of the whole dam.

Correct, though generally, dams are designed to not distribute it evenly, but with most of the weight on the "upstream" side, where the uplift pressure is greatest.  Generally, if there's a sheeted or grouted curtain under the dam, there's much less need for downforce on the downstream side than upstream.


Note how there's 150' of head at C and only 30 at K.

[Cripplecreek]

Correct, though generally, dams are designed to not distribute it evenly, but with most of the weight on the "upstream" side, where the uplift pressure is greatest.  Generally, if there's a sheeted or grouted curtain under the dam, there's much less need for downforce on the downstream side than upstream.


Note how there's 150' of head at C and only 30 at K.