Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-23-2014, 03:30 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
1,579 posts, read 2,327,897 times
Reputation: 1155

Advertisements

Will the levees contain the water in the event of a major flood event? Is the dam breaking the major concern here?

When is the last time the city had water flood 1/3 of the homes and businesses in the area, with casualties?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2014, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Auburn, CA
4 posts, read 5,723 times
Reputation: 10
I live outside Sacramento and haven't heard of any flood event. In fact, we are in a severe drought...a little bit of rain would be a welcome sight! I think you have stumbled upon some false information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-23-2014, 05:36 PM
 
2,220 posts, read 2,779,908 times
Reputation: 2711
Quote:
Originally Posted by smeschede View Post
I live outside Sacramento and haven't heard of any flood event. In fact, we are in a severe drought...a little bit of rain would be a welcome sight! I think you have stumbled upon some false information.
*For now*, there is no flood problem, as we are in a drought. But monsoon like rains, as there were in 1980-1986 and 1995-2001, will come again.

Build Auburn Dam, for goodness sake. In a state with alternating drought and flood cycles and in need of clean hydropower, anyone who gets goo-goo about a "Wild and Scenic River" needs to be committed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2014, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Shingle Springs, CA
534 posts, read 1,525,155 times
Reputation: 669
Levees can break on a hot summer day: google Jones Tract, 2006, I believe.

Sacramento was the number two city in the nation under threat of flooding back in the early 2000s, second only to New Orleans. Guess what? NOLA had their levees repaired after the hurricane, so Sacramento is number one at risk.

Auburn Dam is not even a consideration any more. They took the old footings out. There was a seismic risk.

Recent floods ocurred in 1986, 1995, 1997. and 2006. See this link for good information:

Region's Flooding History
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2014, 11:13 PM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
1,579 posts, read 2,327,897 times
Reputation: 1155
Maybe I should check out the flood maps. I was mainly wondering about catastrophic floods. Obviously with New Orleans you have the risk of the levees breaking but the American river seems really minuscule compared to the Mississippi river and also I wasn't sure if Sacramento was on higher land than the surrounding areas. Some parts of New Orleans were high and dry. In Baton Rouge we have levees that could break but Baton Rouge is on a bluff so most of the core areas would be fine. May take on some water but it won't be 5 or 6ft up our walls.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2014, 04:32 AM
 
660 posts, read 1,075,799 times
Reputation: 377
Sacramento is at serious risk of catastrophic flooding and always has been. If Folsom Dam were to fail it would lead to massive levee failures, widespread flooding of the valley up to 30 feet or more deep (which would happen to the entire region within an hour or so), and 100s of thousands of casualties.

The US Army Corps of Engineers concluded on 1975 that a failure of Folsom Dam would lead to 250,000 casualties. That was back when Sacramento had half as many people as we do now.

With all of the rivers, creeks, drainage ditches etc that are in the region, there are very few areas west of the foothills that wouldn't see catastrophic damage. As bad, if not worse than New Orleans after Katrina.

Anybody who thinks it's not an issue because we're in a drought is delusional. There's enough water in Folsom right now to ruin large sections of the region. God help us the next time we see a 100-year level storm, or worse.

Folsom Dam was built to provide 500-year flood protection to Sacramento. After it's completion, they estimated that, based on 100 years of records, it would take a year to fill the lake up. Then a new record storm hit, and the lake was at capacity in A WEEK. Ever since the completion, we have seen 5 new record-setting storms, each bigger than the previous storm. Folsom's protection level has been lowered to, I believe, 82 year flood protection now.

The scariest part is that none of these record storms hit Sacramento directly. All of them have hit just north of the city causing major levee breaks.

A huge storm hit in 1852 I believe, that brought 40 straight days of rain to the region. It flooded everything from Southern Oregon to Southern California and turned the Valley into an Inland Sea 30 miles wide.

So what I'm trying to say is, yeah flooding is a big ****ing problem here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2014, 05:45 AM
 
Location: Bella Vista, Ark
77,772 posts, read 104,128,573 times
Reputation: 49244
Quote:
Originally Posted by CeJeH View Post
Sacramento is at serious risk of catastrophic flooding and always has been. If Folsom Dam were to fail it would lead to massive levee failures, widespread flooding of the valley up to 30 feet or more deep (which would happen to the entire region within an hour or so), and 100s of thousands of casualties.

The US Army Corps of Engineers concluded on 1975 that a failure of Folsom Dam would lead to 250,000 casualties. That was back when Sacramento had half as many people as we do now.

With all of the rivers, creeks, drainage ditches etc that are in the region, there are very few areas west of the foothills that wouldn't see catastrophic damage. As bad, if not worse than New Orleans after Katrina.

Anybody who thinks it's not an issue because we're in a drought is delusional. There's enough water in Folsom right now to ruin large sections of the region. God help us the next time we see a 100-year level storm, or worse.

Folsom Dam was built to provide 500-year flood protection to Sacramento. After it's completion, they estimated that, based on 100 years of records, it would take a year to fill the lake up. Then a new record storm hit, and the lake was at capacity in A WEEK. Ever since the completion, we have seen 5 new record-setting storms, each bigger than the previous storm. Folsom's protection level has been lowered to, I believe, 82 year flood protection now.

The scariest part is that none of these record storms hit Sacramento directly. All of them have hit just north of the city causing major levee breaks.

A huge storm hit in 1852 I believe, that brought 40 straight days of rain to the region. It flooded everything from Southern Oregon to Southern California and turned the Valley into an Inland Sea 30 miles wide.

So what I'm trying to say is, yeah flooding is a big ****ing problem here.
I disagree with you: it is not a big deal. Almost anywhere you find a levee or a dam you run the risk of flooding, but Sacramento is not a BIG -ing problem. There are problems everywhere. I would worry about other things in the Sac area more than flooding and I would worry more about flooding in part of the country more than I would in Sac
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2014, 06:57 AM
 
660 posts, read 1,075,799 times
Reputation: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by nmnita View Post
I disagree with you: it is not a big deal. Almost anywhere you find a levee or a dam you run the risk of flooding, but Sacramento is not a BIG -ing problem. There are problems everywhere. I would worry about other things in the Sac area more than flooding and I would worry more about flooding in part of the country more than I would in Sac
Well you should do some research because you're wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2014, 09:34 AM
 
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
3,720 posts, read 9,953,955 times
Reputation: 3927
There has been work near Folsom lake for years to strengthen the levees and dam. Not sure how that changes the risk but I would hope it's reducing the chance of a major problem. I live uphill from the lake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-25-2014, 11:39 AM
 
2,963 posts, read 6,235,416 times
Reputation: 1576
There is more chance of a major earthquake destroying SF or LA than there is a flood destroying Sacramento. Pick your poison if you want to live in CA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Sacramento

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top