Auburn Dam a Torrent of Doubts
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tempting fate: A torrent of doubts Project backers expect electricity, water and flood protection, but critics call it pie-in-the-sky By Matt Weiser -- Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 am PST Sunday, February 19, 2006 Story appeared on Page A1 of The Sacramento Bee American taxpayers have had an unsteady relationship with the Auburn dam: $400 million spent so far on a dam that was never built; another $30 million through the end of this year to restore the former construction site; and now $1 million more to study whether to build the dam after all. Since Hurricane Katrina swamped New Orleans, Auburn dam supporters have rallied behind the project anew, suggesting it should be revived to protect Sacramento from a similar disaster. The debate over the dam has always been politically charged, but an analysis by The Bee found an Auburn dam also could be an expensive mistake. Tony Firenzi, an engineer with the Placer County Water Agency, stands in the midst of the Auburn dam constrcution site, where work was Supporters want to build a multiuse dam, which would rely halted decades ago. on water sales, hydroelectric power and recreation fees to Sacramento Bee Photo, Bryan Patrick offset a likely cost of $5 billion. But as a reservoir, an Auburn dam would create a limited new water supply, producing too little water and electricity to pay for itself, and at prices one potential buyer likened to champagne. And that's only the beginning of the contradictions between dream and reality. "It has become kind of like a religious site," said Butch Hodgkins, a member of the state Reclamation Board who once lobbied Congress for the dam as executive director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. "The dam is incredibly controversial because it runs flat into the fundamental beliefs of fiscal conservatives and environmentalists. It is, in effect, financially and politically impossible at this time, so you better get a good pair of water wings, or you better find something else." Earth-moving equipments sits silent, above, at the site of the Auburn dam’s east foundation, where construction stopped in 1979. For more than two decades, Rep. John Doolittle, R- Sacramento Bee Photo, Bryan Patrick Roseville, has led the Auburn dam faithful. It was he who persuaded the government to spend $1 million on another dam study by attaching it to an energy and water appropriations bill in November. In an interview Friday, Doolittle dismissed every criticism of the dam, from earthquake risk to the cost of the water it would provide. "Any dam will eventually pay for itself," Doolittle said. "If you build a multipurpose dam, it's a moneymaking machine because it generates the sale of electricity and of water. The project is alive and well, and it begs to be completed." But most water and flood-control experts consider the Auburn dam a fantasy. "It's a dam that makes no economic, environmental or flood-control sense, given the realities of California's water situation," said Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, an independent water- policy think tank in Oakland. "The attraction of building big concrete things is palpable. But it's just no longer realistic, and it's no longer necessary." The Auburn dam may end up being the most expensive dam that never was, with $400 million and counting spent since the project was authorized by Congress in 1965. Earthquake risk halted the project in 1979, leaving behind a gravel pit where a wild left-hand bend in the river used to flow. The dam's problems, culled from dozens of interviews and thousands of pages of public records reviewed by The Bee, include the following: * Auburn dam capacity could reach 2.3 million acre-feet of water, but it would be able to sell, at most, 350,000 acre-feet in an average year because someone else owns the rest. Although this could serve 700,000 homes, a recent state study found that California can meet its needs through 2030 by maximizing conservation and recycling, producing five times more water than an Auburn dam at a fraction of the cost. * Water out of an Auburn dam would be very expensive. A decade-old federal study estimates it could cost almost $1,000 per acre-foot; dam supporters say it could run to $2,000 per acre-foot. The going rate for water today rarely exceeds $500 per acre-foot. * It would be the most costly dam in American history. Supporters use $3 billion as a working estimate; others say $5 billion. The U.S. government pays only 65 percent of the flood-control portion of a new dam, requiring a local sponsor to pay for everything else. There is no local sponsor. * The dam faces numerous environmental obstacles. In 1996, the U.S. Geological Survey said earthquake risk may be far greater than originally thought. And the dam might hurt recreation more than it helps because an average of 1 million people a year now enjoy the canyons that the dam would submerge. Economic challenges An Auburn dam's biggest challenges have always been economic, in part because its location, just east of the city of Auburn, was never a great place for a dam. The best spots allow a small dam that creates a vast reservoir. Hoover Dam on the Colorado River, for instance, blocks a narrow slot canyon, storing 28.5 million acre-feet of water. Auburn dam would be as tall as Hoover, but more than three times as wide. Yet it would store just 8 percent of Hoover's water because the canyons behind it are so short and narrow. William Graf, professor of geography at the University of South Carolina, has assembled one of the most extensive inventories of American dams. He said that by 1980, the United States was built out in terms of dams, with all the good sites taken. More recently, the nation has gone the other direction, demolishing an average of 100 dams annually. "That's the context Auburn dam is still floating around in," Graf said. "I would say it's swimming upstream." Even one-time potential customers are no longer interested. East Bay Municipal Utility District was among the potential buyers of Auburn dam water 40 years ago, when the dam was a $280 million proposal that would have been funded entirely by federal taxpayers. During a hearing at the Legislature in the early 1990s, utility district lobbyist Randy Kanouse recalled, "Not a single utility in the state would get up to testify in support, because of the fear that there would be some expectation created that they were prepared to contract for water out of that reservoir." "All of them said at the time that it's way too expensive," Kanouse added. "It's like champagne behind that dam and it's too rich for our blood." In the ensuing years, the East Bay district has found other ways to meet its water needs, including a diversion canal on the Sacramento River at Freeport, and a seawater desalination project. Both are cheaper than buying water out of an Auburn dam. As a water supply machine, Auburn dam is disappointing in another way: though it can pose a mean flood threat, the American River is not a very rich or reliable water source. A 1991 study by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimated the average annual runoff from the watershed behind the dam at a modest 1.6 million acre-feet. Most of that already belongs to someone else. "The American is a very highly engineered system, and it captures the bulk of the (water) yield out of that watershed," said Barry Nelson, a senior policy advocate with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Nelson, like other environmentalists, is hardly unbiased about dams. But studies show he is right about the water supply. There are about 20 dams in the American River watershed, which store 75 percent of the average annual runoff. As a result, a 1987 study by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimated a multipurpose Auburn dam could deliver, at most, 350,000 additional acre-feet of water in an average rainfall year. That means only about 15 percent of an Auburn dam's capacity would be available for sale. In comparison, 50 percent of Folsom Dam's capacity is available for sale, even though that reservoir is half as large. The volume of water affects the dam's ability to generate electricity. If the dam can't maintain a high water surface elevation because of limited storage or inflows, water pressure through the hydroelectric turbines is reduced, limiting their power output. This means an Auburn dam might not generate as much revenue from electricity as supporters hope. Though its turbines could be capable of producing 400 megawatts - enough to power 400,000 homes - dams typically operate at less than 50 percent efficiency because of changing water levels and other conditions. A loss of recreation As a recreation destination - another element proposed to offset the dam's cost - Auburn dam also falls short. Supporters say the dam could draw more than 1 million visitors a year for boating and fishing. But the 42,000-acre state park that would be inundated by the dam already draws 1 million visitors a year. Growth in foothill towns and changing demographics are driving new recreation patterns that favor hiking, running, horseback riding, biking, rafting and kayaking. Many of these visitors, who already contribute to the local economy, would be displaced by a dam. Yet, with two narrow arms, the reservoir would be unlikely to become an ideal destination for other forms of recreation, such as water skiing.