Guest opinion: Creek flood control plan doesn't tell the whole story

Thank you Steve and Brielle for bringing this to our attention. As homeowners saddled with flood insurance, I had been (naively) hoping that the bridge project would eliminate that requirement. Why go to the expense and disruption if it doesn't solve the problem?

Thank you, Brielle and Steve, for your alert. I have followed this issue, and I even went to the meeting that was held at Upper Laurel School. I thought that the insurance requirement would be eliminated by the proposed project.

As a double graduate alumnus of Stanford and a past fundraiser for the university, I am disappointed by their unwillingness to participate. With two upstream lakes near the creek, it seems that the university could be a partner in flood control without threatening any use of their land.

--Chuck Bernstein
444 Oak Court, Menlo Park

This opinion is deceptive nonsense. The JPA has been completely open about the multi-phase approach that it is pursuing. First, the area below 101 was fixed. That was recently completed. It is designed to accommodate 100-year events for that reach of the creek. Next, the area between Middlefield and 101 must be fixed. That includes fixing the Chaucer bridge so that it no longer creates an artificial blockage relative to the natural capacity of the creek at that point. It also involves some very moderate adjustment to the banks at certain points. Of course some trees will be removed -- minimal environmental effects which are greatly outweighed by the benefit of the project. And the benefits are substantial -- completely curing flood problems equivalent to the 1998 flood -- the largest flood event on record. And even 100-year events are protected against for everything downstream of Middlefield. The final phase is to fix the reach upstream of Middlefield. This will require Stanford to cooperate on upstream retention. There is no rational reason to hold off one the Middlefield-to-101 phase while waiting for the Stanford upstream detention issues to be resolved. The authors of this opinion have their own selfish "dog-in-the-manger" motivations. The vast majority of folks in this area stand to benefit from the work of JPA. Please don't let these few selfish property owners stand in the way!!

Norman Beemer is right.
There has never been any pretense about replacing the Chaucer bridge.
A new bridge that does not choke the flow will protect Menlo Park and Palo Alto from flooding and will protect Menlo Park from being sued again.
The authors misrepresent the facts and the benefits that a better bridge will bring.