Transparency Slides: this color shows HTML-version of actual slides presented.
Talking Points
are included below each slide in this color.
These are notes to the speaker (from himself)
about major points, examples, ...
that expand upon the bullets on the slides.
They are brief, but may help people reading this document
better understand what was said to the Water District board.
Matadero /Barron Interim Fix
Talking Points
- Thanks to Board
- for delaying decision on interim fix to allow for public input
- for holding special meeting
- Thanks to Staff
- For quickly publicizing the Louis Road Bridge problem so quickly
after it was discovered
- For being very forthcoming at the public meetings,
and at the preparatory meeting,
with information about the problem.
- Hope we have laid basis for continued cooperation
BPA Board Recommendation
Support Alternative 4 (70/70)
- Fairest
- believe that 70/70 understates protection provided
Strongly oppose Alternatives 2 & 3 (Staff recommendation)
- disables protection against expected events in favor of protection against much less likely events
- based on faulty assumptions
Talking Points: no additional
Protect first against the expected
Official weather forecasts
- roughly same as 82-83, but unlikely to be worse
Flooding = storms + other factors
- 82-83: 17-year flood
- 50% variance: 10 - 25 year flood
- 100% variance: 0 - 35 year flood
Alternative 3 (100/20): flooding on Barron, unused capacity in Matadero
Talking Points
- El Nino Prediction: NOAA Climate Prediction Center
(see notes on Public Meeting)
+ others
- Flooding = storms + other factors
- More to flooding an just how wet a winter we have
- Confluence of multiple independent events
(high tide,
low pressure zone,
sequence and intensity of storms,
...)
- Using 82-83 flood as rough guide, ...
- The so-called newspaper test
- Imagine:
- Picture of flooded neighborhood
- Picture of blocked diversion structure
- Picture of Matadero Creek well below capacity:
below where the walls go from slanted to vertical
- Headline: 1000 homes flooded to "protect" houses that were never in danger
Sensationalized: to "protect" 25 houses that were never threatened
- public confidence and board credibility in future (unrelated) controversies
Needed: short-term focus
The 100-year flood protection: good-enough for permanent construction
Interim Fix: focus on short-term & expected
- Alternative 3 (100/20): focuses on protection based on long-term risk, but achieved by disabling protection from expect risk
- Alternative 4 (70/70): most protection for the most people from expected events this year
Talking Points
- 100-year flood "runs through" this decision making process
- when building permanent flood control, this is the threshold for "good-enough"
- This is short-term fix, not permanent solution
- Look at probabilities for this winter,
instead of focusing on long-term probabilities
Flood Zone: In or Out?
100-year flood: arbitrary dividing line between who is inside and outside flood zone
- Staff accustomed to this binary distinction
- Reality is that flood risk is continuous function
- 100-year flood level is imprecise, guestimate, ...
Application: “introducing houses into flood zone”
Principle + arbitrary limit = technicality
- Gross disparity in treatment based on minor difference in status
Talking Points
If your house is declared to be above this line,
no matter how dubious the data behind that classification,
your flood protection cannot be reduced.
But should your house be one smidgen under that line,
the District has no qualms about eliminating most of your flood protection.
Technicality: acknowledge that legal technicalities are non-trivial,
but note that they are not to be treated as moral principles.
Why Barron as focus for fix?
Unconscious bias: Barron Creek is responsible for putting “the excess water” into Matadero
- prominence: last segment built
- unconventional: transfer of water between creeks
History reminder:
- Both Barron and Matadero channels inadequate
- Diversion channel was cheaper and less disruptive than enlarging Barron channel
- Matadero channel designed to handle Barron overflow
Talking Points
- Project occasioned by major flooding on Barron,
and limited flooding on Matadero (at bridges)
- After "Background": because this approach was Innovative,
hence unconventional, should not result in those people being penalized.
Uneven Rationales
Completed/uncompleted work
- Barron diversion (phase 5d): uncompleted
- Lower Matadero (phase 1 & 2): completed
Takeaways
- Barron: from pre-project
- Lower Matadero: from current
Historical rights
- Stanford ditch (artificial): has historical rights
- Barron: flowed into Matadero before channel: no rights
Talking Points
- Completed
- Notice that there are no alternatives to dismantle
any of the protections built during Phases 1 and 2 of this project,
only those for Phase 5d.
- The staff report calls the project not completed
because some of the paperwork is not finalized.
But this is the paperwork that discovered the problems
in the construction of Phase 1 and 2,
but this technicality is used to claim that the Phase 5d
construction is technically not completed,
and hence can be disabled.
- Takeaways
- The argument for staff recommendation states that Barron Creek
has more protection (20-year) than before the project (4-year),
but does not apply same argument to lower Matadero, which had
13-year protection before the project.
- Argument is equivalent to saying:
They have gone this long without the flood protection that
they have been paying taxes for for all these years,
so what is one more year
- Just as valid/invalid as argument:
They have been given less value for their money over the years,
so they should be less choice for reduced protection
- History
- Add: worst flooding from Barron occurs along old channel to Matadero
Alternative 4: 70/70 or better
Background:
- Barron: rises quickly, falls quickly
- Matadero: rise and fall is much slower and delayed
Opportunity:
- Matadero typically has most spare capacity when Barron needs it the most.
- Any reduction of diversion channel should be
Staff objection: potential for difficult judgements
Talking Points
- Barron: typically fallen dramatically before trailing edge of storm has passed
- Matadero: typically continues to rise day or two after storm has passed
- Staff objections:
- As engineer myself, can sympathize with having to make critical decision
with inadequate data
- Believe that decision for most cases will be realively clear
- Don't pass up opportunity to do better
than fixed setting on diversion channel
because no guarantee that the absolute best choice can be made
in all cases.
Summary
Oppose recommended alternative (#3 = 100/20)
- High risk of causing unnecessary flooding
- Recommendation based on mindset and priorities appropriate for permanent projects (the usual case)
Support alternative #4 (70/70)
- Even distribution of risk
- Best chance of avoiding any flooding this year
Talking Points
- Emphasize acknowledging the difficulty of the choice -
gamble based on too many uncertain factors