Searsville Dam will stay for now; endangered fish to get more water

Poking a hole in an unneeded dam or letting it fill in with sediment are not viable solutions. These are ineffective Band-Aids that will be unlikely to gain permitting or funding support. The troubling thing is that recent studies have shown that dam removal, combined with identified off-stream floodwater detention ponds and floodplain restoration, can provide the most benefit to the ecosystem while also achieving flood protection benefits in line with their preferred hole-in-dam alternative. This may be what Stanford "wants" to do, but that will change when permitting agencies and others weigh in on the feasibility and beneficial uses of these options compared to removing the dam and obtaining the same level of flood protection in a preferable way.

its already filled with sediment

Beyond Searsville Dam and American Rivers issue a response to this flawed approach for Searsville Dam:

Web Link

Dam removal is the most irresponsible solution possible. Removal of the 2.7 million cubic yards of sediment would require more invasive construction equipment than this community has ever seen. This dam has been here for 123 years! Furthermore, the flood prevention issues without the dam are almost insurmountable and the multiple agencies still do not have a solution even after the flooding of the last el Nino storms. And as a final thought; Searsville dam and the water rights are private property and in general, I have a problem with more Government meddling.

bluedog,

The Stanford plan proposes to transport most of the sediment downstream to the Bay using high flow events, dam removal would be no different. Yes, the dam is old… just like many other outdated things we should not be clinging to anymore. The Searsville, and early JPA, studies identified multiple off-stream detention basins that would provide as much or more flood prevention with dam removal than this Stanford idea. Finally, water rights are NOT private property. Water is a public resource and entities can obtain and retain water rights if they use them in a way that does not degrade public trust resources and put wildlife at risk of extinction. Bad actors with mismanaged dams can lose these rights to "our" water.

Fish and Game will have a major problem flowing silt downstream. They fine contractors if they allow silt to flow into creeks or into the storm sewer. I question whether they would allow the quantities of silt behind the dam to be let into the creek. If they won't then removal can only be accomplished with heavy equipment and trucks. A lot of them.

What happened to all the posters who claimed that the silt was not going to be a problem???

[Post removed. Please make your points without insulting other posters.]