ProtoPolyAss: What About Building Water Pipelines To CA and the SW?

[From_the_NEK]

As previously posted, Folsom dam has is designed that the spillway gates are at the top of the dam. This means that in a rain on snow event, water from a massive watershed can enter the lake significantly faster than the dam can release it, since the spillway gates are useless until the water is near the top. As such, Folsom lake must be kept low throughout the early winter months to protect against this event. ACoE has been working on building a new $1 billion spillway with gates that are significantly lower for about a decade, and the project is close to completion. This would allow the lake to operate through the winter at a higher level.

http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missio...ySpillway.aspx

Several other N. Cal dams share this same design issue. Folsom is one of the largest, with the largest watershed at risk for a rain on snow event. I believe raising Shasta is next in line. Building check dams further upstream to help regulate incoming flows will help us retain more water during the early winter.

I was trying to figure out why a spillway would cost a billion $. Then I watched the videos in your link. The "Spillway" is basically another dam that is upside down compared to the original dam (spillways on the bottom). I would think the currently low reservoir levels would be making the job a lot easier and they'd be able to complete the job earlier and on a lower budget, but that is probably fantasy talk.

[DJSapp]

I was trying to figure out why a spillway would cost a billion $. Then I watched the videos in your link. The "Spillway" is basically another dam that is upside down compared to the original dam (spillways on the bottom). I would think the currently low reservoir levels would be making the job a lot easier and they'd be able to complete the job earlier and on a lower budget, but that is probably fantasy talk.

[containing rage] It was a hard money contract. I bid it, and my company didn't get it. Those guys should be printing cash, as a lot of the work that was to be done in the water is being done on dry land.

And the project has been ongoing for quite a while. You can't just build a dam of this size during one low water year.

[PB]

..........[containing rage] ........

And the project has been ongoing for quite a while. You can't just build a dam of this size during one low water year.

Interesting; seems like 3 or for years of drought out to be enough ..........

[Benny Profane]

Been sinking for years, actually. It comes and goes depending on surface water availability. Here's a photo from 1977:




http://gallery.usgs.gov/photos/09_15...0#.VXnS6PlVhBc

This article explains that pic and warns of many more problems.

http://www.motherjones.com/environme...t-ground-water

[Benny Profane]

Meanwhile, in the northeast...







.

Seriously, I have to wear amber glasses in the middle of the day right now in summer as I road bike just to be able to see in the shadows. I am shopping for amber sunglasses for driving around here in the summer, but they are hard to find.

[iceman]

DJ, why can't they build actual spillways around these dams to allow them to be kept higher? Like a big wide but short canal with a check dam at the top? Or even no dam if you set the floor of the canal at a high enough level. Seems like a more practical way to accomplish the goal of keeping more water upstream than building new dams.

[char]

DJ, why can't they build actual spillways around these dams to allow them to be kept higher? Like a big wide but short canal with a check dam at the top? Or even no dam if you set the floor of the canal at a high enough level. Seems like a more practical way to accomplish the goal of keeping more water upstream than building new dams.

This is what they are doing at Folsom if I read correctly. A new spillway that allows them to change the timing of when they store and release water. (Also, I think you just described a reservoir )

These dams are operated with a whole host of competing priorities, one of which is to control flooding (with multi-billion dollar costs if they screw it up). Not to mention court mandated releases for fish, irrigation, water supplies, power production, etc. etc.

[iceman]

This is what they are doing at Folsom if I read correctly. A new spillway that allows them to change the timing of when they store and release water. (Also, I think you just described a reservoir )

These dams are operated with a whole host of competing priorities, one of which is to control flooding (with multi-billion dollar costs if they screw it up). Not to mention court mandated releases for fish, irrigation, water supplies, power production, etc. etc.

Well the way I read the thread, at Folsom they are essentially building a new dam with spillways at the bottom to replace the existing dam, not building a spillway around it.

The second part of your post I get, and I'm sure that lot of interests were represented when they designed the thing. For instance, releasing water from the bottom means that colder water gets released than from the top, which is good for a lot of fish, so maybe that's why they're doing it as much as increasing storage. Because if the goal was simply to increase storage they sure picked an expensive way to do it.

[char]

Well the way I read the thread, at Folsom they are essentially building a new dam with spillways at the bottom to replace the existing dam, not building a spillway around it.

The second part of your post I get, and I'm sure that lot of interests were represented when they designed the thing. For instance, releasing water from the bottom means that colder water gets released than from the top, which is good for a lot of fish, so maybe that's why they're doing it as much as increasing storage. Because if the goal was simply to increase storage they sure picked an expensive way to do it.

They are pretty much doing what you are describing, just with gates at the bottom of the dam. That channel on the right will have a concrete control structure at the top with gates built into the bottom of it.

That structure isn't for water retention though, its to get rid of it. Maybe DJ can elaborate on whether that will allow them to operate the dam in a different way.

[iceman]

^^^huh, that's not what I thought from reading the thread but you are correct it appears.

The idea is to let them keep more water behind the dam without worrying that a big rain on snow event would overtop it, it seems like it should allow for that.

[DJSapp]

^^^huh, that's not what I thought from reading the thread but you are correct it appears.

The idea is to let them keep more water behind the dam without worrying that a big rain on snow event would overtop it, it seems like it should allow for that.

Char has hit it spot on. The problem with a rain on snow event is better show in a map of the watershed



Yeah, pretty much all of Sacramento to Tahoe between US 50 and I80 all falls into Folsom Lake. The problem is that the downstream American River can't handle an uncontrolled rain on snow event if there was an uncontrolled release without wiping out a massive section of Sacramento. To fix this, they have to either operate the lake very low through the winter (current SOP), or figure out a way to release water faster so they can run it higher, and dump it fast enough to take the big hit from a rain on snow situation (future SOP). To get nerdy, Folsom lake has seen inflows of up to 280,000 cfs in 1964, and another article says 800k+ cfs in 1986 (unconfirmed though) but they can only safely release around 115,000 cfs into the lower american river, The problem with the current dam is they can't hit peak release until the water is at the top of the lake, and then it's already too late.

And for scale, Char's photo shows the spillway at about a mile long, the near side is a 400' downhill, and that's cut into 35' of granite. On the far end, the control structure is about 150' tall (can't remember, been a while) and granite started around 10' into the dig. Big ass project.

[DJSapp]

Once again liberals are the root cause of the problem


http://joeforamerica.com/2015/04/cal...ater-shortage/

Yeah! Screw wildlife! Let's dam off the San Francisco bay and be done with it!

[Benny Profane]

Rain barrel felons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/us...s-drought.html

[LightRanger]

Yeah, pretty much all of Sacramento to Tahoe between US 50 and I80 all falls into Folsom Lake. The problem is that the downstream American River can't handle an uncontrolled rain on snow event if there was an uncontrolled release without wiping out a massive section of Sacramento. To fix this, they have to either operate the lake very low through the winter (current SOP), or figure out a way to release water faster so they can run it higher, and dump it fast enough to take the big hit from a rain on snow situation (future SOP). To get nerdy, Folsom lake has seen inflows of up to 280,000 cfs in 1964, and another article says 800k+ cfs in 1986 (unconfirmed though) but they can only safely release around 115,000 cfs into the lower american river, The problem with the current dam is they can't hit peak release until the water is at the top of the lake, and then it's already too late.

And for scale, Char's photo shows the spillway at about a mile long, the near side is a 400' downhill, and that's cut into 35' of granite. On the far end, the control structure is about 150' tall (can't remember, been a while) and granite started around 10' into the dig. Big ass project.

Check this out dude: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...44#post4185144

I don't know that I believe that peak for 1986. See pp. 51 and 56: http://cepsym.org/Sympro2012/schick_prnfmt.pdf I mean, sure, we're talking measurements downstream of the dam in that chart in my link vs inflows. But, still...

BTW, the links from that main symposium page over a goldmine (heh) of data.

[4matic]

Once again liberals are the root cause of the problem

The Eel River also came close to being dammed after a devastating flood in 1964. But Ronald Reagan, who became governor in 1967, refused to give the go-ahead. The location envisioned for the dam, while pretty good for water-supply purposes, would have been little help against floods, and it was hard to square the costs of the projects with the likely benefits. What’s more, the dam would have flooded an Indian reservation. “We’ve broken enough treaties with the Indians already,” Reagan reportedly said at the time. In 1973, after California passed its Wild & Scenic Rivers law, Reagan added the Eel to the list

Reagan's chief adviser on environmental issues was a man named Norman "Ike" Livermore who was a Republican conservationist in the tradition of Teddy Roosevelt. Livermore and Reagan shared a love for the outdoors. But they both wanted to preserve California's rich natural beauty so humans could enjoy it. Not only did their efforts help stop the potentially destructive Eel River project, but they also blocked the Trans-Sierra Highway from destroying the pristine John Muir Trail. Again, all of this was done with the idea of preserving nature for the benefit of the people of California.

[DJSapp]

Check this out dude: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...44#post4185144

I don't know that I believe that peak for 1986. See pp. 51 and 56: http://cepsym.org/Sympro2012/schick_prnfmt.pdf I mean, sure, we're talking measurements downstream of the dam in that chart in my link vs inflows. But, still...

BTW, the links from that main symposium page over a goldmine (heh) of data.

Yeah, I didn't buy that 1986 inflow rate either. It's from a UC Davis webpage though, but it is old and hasn't been updated, or list any source that they came up with that number. It could have been calculated from the lake level data and watching the lake level rise over time

https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/shed/l...FolsomDam.html

I'm guessing a grad student fat fingered the paper and nobody has caught it.

edit: on actually doing the math, that inflow would have filled the entire lake in about 16 hours. Forget about that 800k inflow.

[LightRanger]

edit: on actually doing the math, that inflow would have filled the entire lake in about 16 hours. Forget about that 800k inflow.

That's kind of in the neighborhood of what I was thinking. Thought process was, "Wait. Folsom isn't even that big."

I recall from the storm at the beginning of last December that inflows into Shasta were a net 60,000 CFS or so. And that was after 7 inches of rain above the reservoir in a 24 hour period.

That PPT link shows January 1862 storms peaking the American at roughly 318,000 CFS. I remember a rule of thumb that 50K CFS is roughly 100K AF/day. So Folsom would've been filled in less than two days.

[bodywhomper]

i jumped in a CA river today. it felt really good. the water level was pretty low and temp was pretty high for mid-june, which was expected.

[containing rage] It was a hard money contract. I bid it, and my company didn't get it. Those guys should be printing cash, as a lot of the work that was to be done in the water is being done on dry land.

And the project has been ongoing for quite a while. You can't just build a dam of this size during one low water year.

I think we run in similar circles.

DJ, why can't they build actual spillways around these dams to allow them to be kept higher? Like a big wide but short canal with a check dam at the top? Or even no dam if you set the floor of the canal at a high enough level. Seems like a more practical way to accomplish the goal of keeping more water upstream than building new dams.

"they" are raising dams (e.g. shasta, los vaqueros) or designing dams that can be raised in the future (calaveras).

[406]

Some interesting technology, article from http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/...?#article-copy

KB Home, one of the state’s largest builders, showed off a new recycling system in San Diego Monday that eliminates the need for much of the drinking water now used to quench thirsty landscapes. It would drop overall water use by as much as 72 percent. Water officials say it is the first time such a system is being installed in a housing subdivision.

The $10,000 system comes at a time when California is searching for ways to reduce water use because of severe drought. It is a standard feature in KB Home’s 52-home Sea Cliff project and routes so-called “gray water” from showers, bathtubs, washing machines and bathroom sinks through filters that remove most solids and impurities, and makes the water ready for use in each home’s landscaping.

The project, which held its grand opening over the weekend, is located north of state Route 56 in the northern San Diego city neighborhood of Rancho Penasquitos. Homes range from $890,000 to just over $1 million on floor plans of 2,892 to 3,934 square feet. Sales agent Sandro Di Nunzio said the recycling system caught the buyers’ attention.



“People just see it as a great innovation. It’s setting the community apart from other builders,” he said.

KB obtained the system from Nexus eWater, founded in Australia five years ago and recently relocated to California.

“We’re the only certified system and this is the only place (it’s been installed),” said Scott Isaksen, Nexus’ director of engineering and technical services.

The National Sanitary Foundation, based in Ann Arbor, Mich., has certified the system as the only one currently available nationally for this sort of use. Its NSF350 standard was added to the California plumbing code in its most recent edition.

At a tour Monday, Nexus and KB officials showed how the system works.

Used water is routed from drains and pipes to a 50-gallon underground tank in the side yard. It then runs through a 10-gallon-per-hour filtering system that removes virtually all suspended solids, bacteria and impurities and ends up in a 200-gallon underground tank that feeds the home’s landscaping irrigation system.

Ralph Petroff, founder and chairman of Nexus eWater stressed that the water does not meet state drinking standards and should not be consumed.

A monitoring system connected by cell phone alerts Nexus offices if there is a problem that technicians can be dispatched to fix.

Besides the recycling system, the home features the latest in water-saving fixtures and appliances that comply with the EPA’s WaterSense standards program.

Jeff Stephenson, representing the San Diego County Water Authority, said the typical water use of 161 gallons per person per day could be cut by 50 percent with the recycling and higher efficiency features. But Tom Wood, Nexus’ chief technology officer, said use could drop as low as 45 gallons per person per day — a 72 percent reduction.

Nexus originally hoped to certify the use of recycled water for the KB homes’ toilets as well, but city of San Diego building officials said required annual inspections are not presently available to certify that additional use would be safe.

Still Jose Salcedo, a department mechanical engineer and assistant manager, called it a “huge benefit” for homeowners, because it would be included during construction.

Nexus officials said they are ramping up production at new subdivisions and can supply existing homes as well, but at a cost of around $15,000. They expect the costs to drop in coming years.

The project’s unveiling occurred just as home builders gather in San Diego for the annual Pacific Coast Builders Conference, where water conservation is expected to be a common topic by presents and among delegates because the growing concerns about the ongoing drought. While water districts around the state have been ordered to cut back usage, cities and counties continue to approve new construction that generates more water demand.

David Cogdill, CEO of the California Building Industry Association that runs the conference, took note of that apparent paradox by saying new homes typically are more efficient in water use.

“We are part of the solution and not part of the problem,” Cogdill said at the KB Homes tour, and it “only makes sense” to move people into more efficient homes, where they can save money.

Tracy Quinn, a policy analyst at the National Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica, called the Nexus system a “step in the right direction” toward reducing Californians’ water “footprint.”

“As our water resources continue to diminish and our population continues to grow, I think we’ll see an increase in the cost of water,” she said. “As more (recycling) products come along, we’ll see a cost reduction in those products as well.”

Steve Ruffner, KB regional president, said the company will likely offer the system at other new projects around the state but has not decided if it will be included as a standard or an option.

“We’ll see how it goes,” he said.

[LightRanger]

San Francisco is debating making grey water systems mandatory for new construction. Good ideas.

[406]

San Francisco is debating making grey water systems mandatory for new construction. Good ideas.

Seems like a no brainer, $10k on million dollar homes is insignificant. Although, doesn't seem like there would be much new construction in SF compared to SD or LA/OC/IE...hopefully the SoCal County's will make them mandatory.

[PB]

I'd be very interested in more detailed schematics focusing on built-in redundancy and monitoring/control points, as well as the Nextreater/filtration unit, and how it all meshes with the sewage system.

[iceman]

If you xeriscape you don't even need that system but people want lawns in the desert for some reason.

[Tippster]

And the project has been ongoing for quite a while. You can't just build a dam of this size during one low water year.

Haven't the last 4 years been "low water years?" I think part of the problem is the institutional inertia that must be overcome.