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 : $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 , 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. , 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. 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 . 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 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 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 '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. The steep canyon walls also would mean limited shallow areas to create the kind of fish habitat ideal for anglers. Kayaker Geoff Calhoun of Auburn trakes along the Confluence Trail That topography also means inevitable swings in the next to the American River, not far upstream from where the north and middle forks meet. If Auburn dam were to be built, this area is reservoir's water elevation would be dramatic - and more territory that would be submerged. likely to limit recreation access. Sacramento Bee photo, Bryan Patrick

"I would say that in the long run, it can be thought of as nothing but a reduction of recreation potential," said Jordan Fisher Smith, a former park ranger at Auburn State Recreation Area who wrote a book about his experiences there.

One acknowledgment of these realities is the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's ongoing restoration of the long-abandoned Auburn dam construction site. The diversion tunnel that has carried the American River away from the construction area for 35 years will be plugged in 2008, and the river will be returned to its original bed. The banks will be replanted with native vegetation, and boulders placed to create rapids for kayakers and rafters.

Dam backers chalk up the various problems as unknowns, not Tony Fierenzi stands next to the left of an intake pipe for the agency that draws water from the American River for obstacles. its customers. Sacramento Bee Photo, Bryan Patrick "We don't know what the real numbers are going to be. There's really no way, at this point in time, to have a real good handle on it," said Bruce Kranz, chairman of the American River Authority, a joint powers agency consisting of foothills governments.

He acknowledged an Auburn dam could end up costing $5 billion or more. No one is offering to pick up that gigantic tab. The Auburn Dam Council, a private group that supports the dam, wants to create a special district of local governments to issue revenue bonds to pay for the dam and solicit federal matching funds. It will ask Sacramento County to join.

Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson, also chairman of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, said such participation is not likely.

It would be risky, Dickinson said, to tie up billions of dollars and limited government resources in one project. The dam, he said, will address only one flood threat to the city, while Sacramento also faces a grave risk from the Sacramento River, the and the Bear River, and from rising sea levels due to global warming. Sacramento's attention has turned to a new flood-control solution: a package of improvements and Folsom Dam modifications expected to double the city's flood protection. Likely to cost $1 billion, the package has congressional approval.

Paying those bills, however, depends on a fragile political alliance. Another Auburn dam debate could delay the expected 2021 completion date, some fear, leaving Sacramento at risk.

"There are those who get, in a sense, obsessed with the idea of Auburn dam because they think it is the magic answer. But that's just not the case," Dickinson said. "It's not a matter of whether we like Auburn dam or don't like Auburn dam. It's a matter of making sure we get improvements in flood protection to the maximum extent that we can realize over the next several years." Environmental issues

There are both new and lingering environmental problems that also make Auburn dam unlikely.

Earthquakes, for instance, are one of the most difficult natural events to plan for. And while it is known that Auburn dam would straddle an earthquake fault, some dam supporters dismiss this risk.

"One of the things we're going to focus our effort on is debunking the myth of earthquakes," Kranz said. "It doesn't need more study. We've got geologists that believe that is not an issue. But the public doesn't understand that."

A 1975 earthquake near was what halted Auburn dam construction in the first place. That quake hit on the Bear Mountains Fault Zone, a complex of fractures paralleling the Sierra Nevada foothills. The same system crosses the Auburn dam site.

Studies later found that Auburn dam's graceful thin arch design could fail in a quake. The project was switched to a stouter concrete gravity dam, like Folsom Dam, but construction never resumed.

Though faults beneath Auburn dam have not experienced significant earthquake activity in a long time - perhaps not in millions of years - that does not mean a quake is out of the question.

A 1996 U.S. Geological Survey study actually found that the fault under Auburn dam could move more violently than originally estimated, and called for new studies if the dam is revived.

"There's been no dramatic changes in science I can think of that would really impact the conclusions of that 1996 study," said David Schwartz, the study's lead author and now chief of the Bay Area Earthquake Hazards Project at USGS.

Two other environmental problems have emerged more recently:

* Dire ecological conditions downstream in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. An Auburn dam could limit fresh water flows into the Delta, further harming water quality and fish species already in decline.

* A belt of naturally occurring asbestos in the soil at the dam site, unnoticed decades ago. The fibers could cause cancer and other health problems if they become airborne during construction.

"I think we're in a place where that kind of dam is in the same category as a large-scale nuclear power plant. People can get rabid about it," said Otis Wollan, a board member of the Placer County Water Agency. "I say, 'Show me where it's realistic, and I'll have a conversation with you about it.' " THE SAGA OF THE AUBURN DAM

1965: Congress authorizes U.S. Bureau of Reclamation to build the Auburn-Folsom South Unit, consisting of a $282 million dam on the American River and the 68-mile to transport water to San Joaquin County. The dam is to be a 690-foot-tall earthen structure storing 2.5 million acre-feet of water. December 1967: Construction starts on the dam, with the official groundbreaking on Oct. 19, 1968. The dam has evolved into a 4,200-foot-long, thin-arch concrete structure, located just east of the city of Auburn.

1972: Environmental groups win a court ruling to halt construction of the canal, which by now has been built over a distance of 26 miles. Construction never resumes.

Nov. 29, 1972: Diversion tunnel completed to force the American River out of its natural bed and away from the dam construction site. The tunnel is 33 feet in diameter and 2,400 feet long.

1973: Environmental groups challenge the dam project in court, alleging potential harm caused by the dam was not adequately studied. A federal court rejects their case the following year.

May 1974: Construction begins on the foundation of the new dam.

1975: Construction of 265-foot-high cofferdam is completed to secure the main dam construction site and confine American River flows to the diversion tunnel.

Aug. 1, 1975: An earthquake measuring 5.7 on the Richter scale occurs near , about 50 miles north of Auburn.

April 1976: The Association of Engineering Geologists issues a report stating that Auburn dam's thin-arch design could fail in a moderate quake like the 1975 Oroville temblor.

January 1979: Secretary of the Interior declares that Auburn dam will be redesigned in light of earthquake concerns.

April 29, 1979: Excavation for Auburn dam's foundation is accepted as complete by the Bureau of Reclamation, and further work is halted. A contract to build the dam itself is never awarded.

1980: Auburn dam redesigned to meet earthquake safety concerns. Proposal now is a concrete gravity dam, similar to Folsom Dam. Cost estimated in the $2 billion range.

1984: A new cost-sharing policy for federal water projects requires a "local sponsor" to pay 25 percent of a project's flood-control costs. This share is later increased to 35 percent.

February 1986: Major storm strikes the American River watershed, washing out the earthen cofferdam built to secure the Auburn dam construction site. Folsom Dam operators barely contain the flow, prompting a fresh look at Auburn dam.

July 1987: Bureau of Reclamation releases a study on four different Auburn dam alternatives, from a 315,000 acre-foot proposal costing $534 million to a 2.3 million acre-foot dam costing $1.4 billion.

1988: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation both launch new studies on Auburn dam and American River flood protection.

1991: Corps of Engineers releases the first study on the feasibility of a "dry dam" at the Auburn location. Such a dam would only store water briefly during floods, reducing environmental impacts. 1992: A bill to approve a flood-control only dam at Auburn is rejected in the House of Representatives by a 2-to-1 ratio.

1996: U.S. Geological Survey issues a review of previous seismic studies on the Auburn dam location, concluding that quake-induced ground motions could be greater than original estimates. 1999: California's attorney general asks the Bureau of Reclamation to restore the Auburn dam site, given that there has been no construction activity in 20 years. In 2000, the bureau agrees to do so.

2002: Construction begins on a new pump station for the Placer County Water Agency along the banks of the American River at the dam site.

November 2005: Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, inserts language in an appropriations bill, ordering a $1 million study by the bureau on how much it would cost to build Auburn dam. The study is due in August 2006.

Video shows failure of cofferdam The February storms of 1986 were the largest Sacramento had seen in a generation. All the spillway gates were opened at Folsom Dam to evacuate the reservoir as massive amounts of runoff poured in from the American River. This caused a torrent in the river below the dam, threatening Sacramento's . Upstream, a temporary cofferdam, built in 1975 to allow for construction of the proposed Auburn Dam, was being overtopped by the river. The cofferdam was left in place after construction of Auburn Dam was stopped in 1979 when studies showed that it could fail in an earthquake. Nearly 400 feet high, the earthen cofferdam was designed to fail in a controlled manner in case of large-scale flooding. The reason was to avoid a sudden failure that would send a wall of water toward Folsom Dam. As water poured in from the mountains upstream, water began to pour over the cofferdam, slowly eroding its face. Water also gushed from the diversion tunnel below the dam site. A giant whirlpool appeared above the mouth of the diversion tunnel in the lake formed by the cofferdam.

A waterfall eventually formed over the lip of the eroding cofferdam. Finally, the water elevation in the river channel below began to rise, equalizing pressures on the cofferdam somewhat. Downstream, the spillway at was also raging, and the American River through Sacramento was running nearly at the tops of levees, subjecting the city to one of its worst flood tests ever. The 1986 storms revived the debate about whether to try building Auburn Dam again, and dam supporters hope to start that debate again after the flooding of New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina. - Matt Weiser, Bee Staff Writer