Oroville Spillway Investigation and Repair

Status
Not open for further replies.
[Mod note: this is continuation thread from: https://www.metabunk.org/oroville-dam-spillway-failure.t8381/ ]

There are two new videos out that include images of the upper spillway.

Juan Browne video from April 4th:
Source: https://youtu.be/Mi9auu7muZY



DWR video from April 3rd:
Source: https://youtu.be/6d-_NZsUoEc



Here is a screenshot from.about the 1:26 mark in Juan Browne's video:
Screenshot_2017-04-04-19-53-19.png

To the image left of the small amount of flow from one of the gates, it looks like there is some water flowing down the hillside from below the spillway. Possibly from a drain?


For comparison, here is the screenshot I shared earlier from this DWR video of the recent spillway shut down, from about the 1:17 point Source: https://youtu.be/ixTg5Tgzeus


2017-03-29 12.21.00.png

From the new images, it appears that the brown water and rocks seen inside the flow in this image and the video was coming from a possible drain pipe. This screenshot from the DWR video link from April 3, shared above:

*Shown in a subsequent post from AlmostAce not to be a drain pipe, but a large rock.
20170406-075903-fsy7n.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Boilermaker

Member
From the new images, it appears that the brown water and rocks seen inside the flow in this image and the video was coming from a possible drain pipe. This screenshot from the DWR video link from April 3, shared above:

Looking at the earlier video that showed the water discharge from this point, it sure does look like it's from a pipe and independent of the flow over the spillway deck (in the sense that it's coming from below the deck surface).

The latest drone video panning across the front of the spillway definitely shows a large structure in that location that appears to have a hollow cylinder (meaning a pipe) in the center. The below image is from that video at 1:35 secs in, which is slightly later than the screenshot copied above. In this shot the structure is seen slightly closer up, it definitely appears to have a pipe in the center and it looks like the shotcrete applied to the face of the spillway foundations was deliberately arranged around it:

Screen Shot 2017-04-05 at 2.53.10 PM.png

I could not recall any earlier images from the time that the shotcrete was applied which show this structure and that it was being preserved/built around. But looking back at the images from about a month ago sure enough, it's definitely there:

FL_Oroville-8941_03_08_2017_Crop.jpg FL_Oroville-8734_03_07_2017_Crop.jpg

So what I get from this is that this is indeed a pipe/drain under the spillway and it was literally spewing out material from fairly deep under the spillway deck at one point while the spillway was being ramped down. Exactly why such an obvious flow of material is not visible at other times (especially when the volume of water passing over the deck is greater) I cannot guess. But it's evidence of a very considerable volume of water flow and piping of foundation materials from underneath the remaining upper part of the spillway deck.
 
Last edited:

David Jensen

Closed Account
Hopefully those repairs hold.
Not just the spillway end is a focus.
This interim engineering inspection report from March 2017 mentions the spillway built on clay in some areas and prior void repairs. Hopefully don't have a failure above the current concrete spillway terminus before end of this year's freshet:

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article140390898.html#storylink=cpy
 
Last edited by a moderator:


I could not recall any earlier images from the time that the shotcrete was applied which show this structure and that it was being preserved/built around. But looking back at the images from about a month ago sure enough, it's definitely there:


Not a drain, and of course upon further consideration, a drain would be unlikely to be situated so far below the slab... But I do still wonder where that separate stream of erosion shown in the DWR video from 3/27
came from? Source: https://youtu.be/ixTg5Tgzeus


There are white pipes sticking out beyond the shotcrete. In the first and most recent of two photos above, counting from the brown rock on the veiwer's left toward the right, between the second and third pipe there is some brown streaking on the shotcrete. This streaking is not apparent on the second, older photo. Not a clear enough view of this area to draw any conclusions, but it is a point of interest:2017-04-05 15.51.57.png
 
There is no pipe here - a zoom from a photo just after the initial spillway shutdown shows the large rock pile being used as a tool rest:
upload_2017-4-5_16-24-6.png
Source: https://pixel-ca-dwr.photoshelter.c...00e_s_NS5UuRM/FL-Oroville-7745-03-03-2017-jpg

The applied shotcrete to the face below the spillway and around the rock - were it me, I'd have sprayed the rock too, but it doesn't appear to be a problem.
Actually, the 'Pipe' appears to be further left in Boilermakers and Annas photo. Look at the Tree Line in the Background to see what I mean. Also, the Spillway Wall is relatively close to the 'pipe' sticking out. There is no indent in the wall either. It should be easily visible.
 
Last edited:

Boilermaker

Member
Not a drain, and of course upon further consideration, a drain would be unlikely to be situated so far below the slab... But I do still wonder where that separate stream of erosion shown in the DWR video from 3/27 came from?

I agree that the source of that stream is a difficult issue and also that there's no obvious reason why a drain would be embedded in the rock - however fragmented it is - so far below the deck.

Another point is that the drainpipes used under the spillway were clay and of a smaller diameter than what appears to be a cylinder noted above. In a couple of the pictures posted above you can see parts of the original drains that have been washed out from their original location. Here's an example:

1_ClayPipe.jpg

P.S. I don't think that the white tubes protruding from the shotcrete (see photo in post #1540) are in fact pipes but scaffolding poles embedded in the rock to support the scaffold that was there when the shotcrete was applied.
 

sweepleader

Member
There is no pipe here - a zoom from a photo just after the initial spillway shutdown shows the large rock pile being used as a tool rest:

I agree this is not a pipe. If there is a pipe there, it would be about 6 feet below the surface in undisturbed rock, not very likely in my opinion.
 
I agree that the source of that stream is a difficult issue and also that there's no obvious reason why a drain would be embedded in the rock - however fragmented it is - so far below the deck.

Another point is that the drainpipes used under the spillway were clay and of a smaller diameter than what appears to be a cylinder noted above. In a couple of the pictures posted above you can see parts of the original drains that have been washed out from their original location. Here's an example:

1_ClayPipe.jpg

P.S. I don't think that the white tubes protruding from the shotcrete (see photo in post #1540) are in fact pipes but scaffolding poles embedded in the rock to support the scaffold that was there when the shotcrete was applied.
Regarding your P.S.; the white plastic pipes are to relieve hydrostatic pressure behind the shotcrete.
http://www.reliablebasement.com/blog/2016/june/hydrostatic-pressure-is-more-powerful-than-you-t.aspx
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AlmostaCE

New Member
There are white pipes sticking out beyond the shotcrete. In the first and most recent of two photos above, counting from the brown rock on the veiwer's left toward the right, between the second and third pipe there is some brown streaking on the shotcrete. This streaking is not apparent on the second, older photo. Not a clear enough view of this area to draw any conclusions, but it is a point of interest:

The brown streaking is likely leakage from the damaged and now incomplete herringbone drains that would have connected further down the spillway.

It is not surprising that they do not have a complete seal at the shotcrete/slab interface and any water that is trapped there would naturally find any flaw and use it for escape.

The white pipes below are likely drains with the intention of relieving any water from behind the shotcrete, just as on any significant retaining wall you will see drains near the bottom to relieve the hydrostatic pressure. But, in those installations, a permeable layer is installed between the earth and the wall to allow the water to travel to the drains - in this instance, the shotcrete was applied directly to the rock so there may not be a pathway for the trapped water to make its way down to the lower drains, resulting in the seepage you see between the slab and wall, resulting in the stain.
 

Boilermaker

Member
California DWR press briefing scheduled for 2 p.m. Pacific time today, Thursday 6th April, to be streamed live at DWR's Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/CADWR/

It is thought that this will be the occasion for announcing spillway repair options (consistent with what was said at the last briefing).
 

aczlan

Member
Video: https://www.facebook.com/CADWR/videos/vb.95205192448/10154585277742449/?type=3&theater (sorry, it doesn't seem to let me embed it)
12:47 - 270,000CFS through rebuilt upper spillway gates, historical max is 160,000
13:12 - More than one alternative plan to deal with unknown flows next winter.
14:10 - R&R intact upper spillway slabs, drains, walls and foundation rock as needed, upgrade to modern standards
14:47 - Sounds like they will work on the upper spillway one section at a time as "some may be left for next year" but reinforced by adding rock bolts so the temp repairs can handle 270,000CFS
15:37 - Remove the entire lower spillway and knock back slopes, restore to how it was before 7 Feb 2017 using Roller Compacted Concrete (possibly temp shoring up with RCC if they cant finish before Nov 1st)
17:21 - Screenshot showing where it will be shored up with RCC to fill in eroded holes
18:00 - ESpillway - Never intend to use again, Cutoff wall below weir with RCC to fill between weir and wall, RCC blanket downstream downstream, all to be done by 1 Nov
20:15 - Plans are CEI (because of the minuta and details of how things are setup) and not for public view due to security concerns.

Aaron Z
 
Video: https://www.facebook.com/CADWR/videos/vb.95205192448/10154585277742449/?type=3&theater (sorry, it doesn't seem to let me embed it)
12:47 - 270,000CFS through rebuilt upper spillway gates, historical max is 160,000
13:12 - More than one alternative plan to deal with unknown flows next winter.
14:10 - R&R intact upper spillway slabs, drains, walls and foundation rock as needed, upgrade to modern standards
14:47 - Sounds like they will work on the upper spillway one section at a time as "some may be left for next year" but reinforced by adding rock bolts so the temp repairs can handle 270,000CFS
15:37 - Remove the entire lower spillway and knock back slopes, restore to how it was before 7 Feb 2017 using Roller Compacted Concrete (possibly temp shoring up with RCC if they cant finish before Nov 1st)
17:21 - Screenshot showing where it will be shored up with RCC to fill in eroded holes
18:00 - ESpillway - Never intend to use again, Cutoff wall below weir with RCC to fill between weir and wall, RCC blanket downstream downstream, all to be done by 1 Nov
20:15 - Plans are CEI (because of the minuta and details of how things are setup) and not for public view due to security concerns.

Aaron Z



What about the Security concerns of those, who are affected by the Dam? Trust us, we know what we're doing this time?
 
It is obvious, they are NOT claiming any defect in construction nor maintenance. The drains proved the Spillway was not working as originally designed and, the Spillway did not have a solid connection with clean bedrock using fill concrete. At least, we will be kept in the dark this time. Security concerns cover a multitude of sins.
 

aczlan

Member
It is obvious, they are NOT claiming any defect in construction nor maintenance. The drains proved the Spillway was not working as originally designed and, the Spillway did not have a solid connection with clean bedrock using fill concrete. At least, we will be kept in the dark this time. Security concerns cover a multitude of sins.
Methinks the line will be "the old one was built to old standards, we are rebuilding to modern safer standards"
If they are rebuilding the spillway with RCC from the solid rock on up, it shouldn't have the washout issues that building on fill did and it sounds like the spillway deck will be thicker as well as being built with stronger concrete.

Aaron Z
 

Boilermaker

Member
There are two points that might usefully be added about the latest DWR press briefing - although the first one is as much a question as a reference to information provided.

1. At 13 and 14 minutes into the video, DWR's chief engineer comments on the work proposed to be done to the upper part of the spillway, including as noted above the increase in the the capacity of the flood control structure to 270,000 cfs.

What was not explained or indeed asked about in the Q & A is exactly what that work will involve. For example, are the spillway gates to be replaced/enlarged and will any work be carried out to the foundation of the gate structure itself as opposed to that under the deck downstream of it? If so, this could be a much bigger/more difficult issue than filling the craters in the lower spillway with roller compacted concrete. Apart from anything else, I can't see how major work could be carried out on the gate structure while it still has water against it.

I don't think I missed anything in the press briefing that explains this more fully:

https://www.facebook.com/CADWR/videos/10154585277742449/

2. The "forensic" work of determining what caused the spillway to fail in the first place was also not explained in much detail because it was said still to be in preliminary stages. Nonetheless something said by Mr Croyle at the start of the Q & A (about 40:30 mark) was revealing in that over the last week, core samples taken in the upper spillway have revealed that there was a lot more concrete used in that section than the original specs envisaged or the historical records disclosed. The figure he gave was 4 feet of depth (as opposed to roughly 15" in the original spec).

It seems remarkable that an accurate record of this was not available but anyway, just going by visual observation, the depth of concrete at the failure point was not more than the spec and the slabs were laid on fragmented rock.

I understood Croyle's comments as meaning that there might be less than a full-scale reconstruction required of the upper spillway deck at least for the next flood season.
 
Last edited:

aczlan

Member
What was not explained or indeed asked about in the Q & A is exactly what that work will involve. For example, are the spillway gates to be replaced/enlarged and will any work be carried out to the foundation of the gate structure itself as opposed to that under the deck downstream of it? If so, this could be a much bigger/more difficult issue than filling the craters in the lower spillway with roller compacted concrete. Apart from anything else, I can't see how major work could be carried out on the gate structure while it still has water against it.
They could build a cofferdam in front of the gate structure to allow them to remove the gates even with water at the level of the gates (although, that could make flood control problematic if they got a heavy rainstorm).

Aaron Z
 
1. At 13 and 14 minutes into the video, DWR's chief engineer comments on the work proposed to be done to the upper part of the spillway, including as noted above the increase in the the capacity of the flood control structure to 270,000 cfs.

What was not explained or indeed asked about in the Q & A is exactly what that work will involve. For example, are the spillway gates to be replaced/enlarged and will any work be carried out to the foundation of the gate structure itself as opposed to that under the deck downstream of it? If so, this could be a much bigger/more difficult issue than filling the craters in the lower spillway with roller compacted concrete. Apart from anything else, I can't see how major work could be carried out on the gate structure while it still has water against it.

I don't think I missed anything in the press briefing that explains this more fully:

https://www.facebook.com/CADWR/videos/10154585277742449/


I also find it unclear if they plan to address the known issues with the flood control spillway outlet works during this remodel? Between the 12:30-13:30 mark in the press conference video referenced above, it is clear they are talking about the gated structure, but it is unclear if they are mentioning the "gated spillway" as a means of distinguishing it clearly from the emergency spillway, or if they are introducing a plan for repairs to the gated portion of the flood control spillway? I noticed that the gated portion does not appear to be highlighted in yellow on their visual aid for the first phase of construction.Screenshot_2017-04-07-08-30-05.png

Starting at the 12:30 mark, Jeanne Kuttle mentions "initially the plan is to repair and replace and recover the damaged structures... We're going to look at restoring the gated spillway in a capacity that's almost twice the historic outflow in order to prevent to prevent the use of the emergency spillway. So we're talking about the upper gated flood control outlet, or the upper gated spillway. The proposed design objective that we have will allow approximately 270,000 cubic feet a second to go through the gated control structure, which is well above the historical average maximum flow of 160,000cfs..."

From the documents dredged up here in earlier posts, it seems that the originally designed Flood Control Spillway and outlet works were designed to pass at least 270,000cfs.

Page 106 here:
http://www.water.ca.gov/orovillerelicensing/docs/FEIR_080722/AppendixA/Extracted_Comments/C0005_SutterCty_YubaCity_Levee Dst1_Appendices_Pages_10-177.pdf
Screenshot_2017-03-20-15-13-59.png


And page 98 here:
https://archive.org/stream/zh9californiastatew2003calirich#page/98/mode/1up
2017-04-06 18.25.56.png

In the last 3 inspection reports, it was noted that "The radial gate tendon anchors are about 50-years old and may be reaching the end of their useful life." The same page also mentions a number of cracks noted on the Flood Control Spillway Outlet.
(pg 3 of this 2016 report https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3458956/Oroville-Dam-Inspection-Report-August-2016.pdf).
Screenshot_2017-04-06-11-13-11.png

I hope the plan includes repairs, or replacement if necessary, of this portion of the spillway as well. I would love to hear a clear answer directly from DWR. Hopefully this will be made more clear in future updates.
 
Last edited:

sweepleader

Member
I would love to hear a clear answer directly from DWR. Hopefully this will be made more clear in future updates.

I look at this as getting information from government officials whose job depends on revealing only the minimum amount of information requested, not volunteering anything not asked for.
 

Boilermaker

Member
They could build a cofferdam in front of the gate structure to allow them to remove the gates even with water at the level of the gates (although, that could make flood control problematic if they got a heavy rainstorm).

I also thought about that possibility but discounted it on the basis that the construction of such a dam would entail some considerable excavation/drilling/vibration/disturbance in an area that may be no less prone to subsurface issues than other parts of the site. For an example of what I mean see the excerpt cited below.

Although one lesson to emerge from this incident is that the historical accounts of the construction of the dam complex as a whole and the main spillway in particular are not fully comprehensive, this excerpt from page 133 of the California State Water Project Bulletin No. 200 published in 1974
(link: https://archive.org/stream/zh9californiastatew2003calirich#page/99/mode/1up)
records that there were foundation issues in the flood control gate area:
It seems that this was thought important enough to note for the record even if the extra concrete that Mr Croyle mentioned in the press briefing was not. The additional anchoring methods employed together with the chain-link covering may account for why the upper portion of the spillway deck nearest the gates has held up better than downstream portions of the deck and side walls.

More should be revealed soon when the reconstruction contract tender process advances. As Anna Reynolds notes in her post, there have been other issues about the flood control structure noted in the annual inspection reports and these seem likely to be addressed now. (Maybe that was all that the explanation in the press briefing was referring to, in other words a restoration of the flood control structure to handle its original rated capacity. If so however it was far from clear.)
 
Last edited:

Boilermaker

Member
I look at this as getting information from government officials whose job depends on revealing only the minimum amount of information requested, not volunteering anything not asked for.
I have thought for some time that DWR knows more about the causes of the spillway failure than they are prepared to disclose pending the forensic committee's report, which for some weeks has been described in the press briefings as at a preliminary stage. After all, they would need to prepare restoration plans on the basis of avoiding the same thing happening again. They stand to be shot at if they admit any design or maintenance faults, which of course they don't need while trying to cope with everything else.
 

aczlan

Member
More should be revealed soon when the reconstruction contract tender process advances. As Anna Reynolds notes in her post, there have been other issues about the flood control structure noted in the annual inspection reports and these seem likely to be addressed now.
I would not bet on it. The contract packets are already out (with one amendment due to be added apparently) and they said that the info in them is not to be released to the public.

(Maybe that was all that the explanation in the press briefing was referring to, in other words a restoration of the flood control structure to handle its original rated capacity. If so however it was far from clear.)
That makes sense to me, perhaps they have had a "operational limit" (not announced, but set as an operational limit for the operators) that will be lifted to 270k CFS when these renovations are finished.

Aaron Z
 

Boilermaker

Member
I would not bet on it. The contract packets are already out (with one amendment due to be added apparently) and they said that the info in them is not to be released to the public.

What is known is who the four contractors are - all major civil engineering corporations with dam/spillway construction experience, some of it in California: http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article143200489.html

The reasons for withholding information about causes of the failure and the remedial action to be taken look a little bit, well, unconvincing is a polite term. Strikes me that this is a pretext for deferring dealing with criticism until some later stage:
(Extract below from KCRA news report: http://www.kcra.com/article/california-waives-some-permits-as-dam-repairs-rush-ahead/9243584)

 
Croyle's agency has since asked federal authorities to withhold from the public future reports by the expert panel. The state is citing a law that classifies major dams as critical infrastructure subject to possible terror attack, and that allows certain information about the dams to be withheld.


Of course, that will also make any future crowd-sourced Threads like this impossible. How convenient for them.
 

Boilermaker

Member
Of course, that will also make any future crowd-sourced Threads like this impossible. How convenient for them.
On the other hand, when the cost of the repair contracts becomes public, as it no doubt soon will, pathetic efforts at information control are going to yield to an outcry over whether such cost could have been avoided and, inevitably, who is to blame for it not being avoided. A scapegoat is going to be needed.

Note that one of the four contractors invited to tender for the Oroville repairs is already dealing with the Folsom Dam auxiliary spillway project, which has an estimated cost of $900 million:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/water-and-drought/article143200489.html

We could address the subject of debunking the asserted security reasons for keeping the spillway failure cause and repair information out of public view, but on reflection I think that those reasons will themselves collapse in any event.
 

Boilermaker

Member
Is there some implication you are trying to convey with this paragraph?

Only that the cost of repairing Oroville's spillways at present day construction costs is likely to be in multiples of $100 million and substantially above what has been incurred to date, as to which we have only fairly general figures and DWR won't be drawn even on what those total to date. I have a nasty feeling that the repairs works are going to amount to a substantial proportion of what the complex cost to build in the first place.

Folsom involves the creation of an entirely new auxiliary spillway, including excavation and the creation of a new flood control gate structure. I understand that it has a budget cap of some $1billion, and though reportedly the final cost will be under that figure the expenditure has been spread over several years - which will not happen with the Oroville repairs. See these among other reports:

https://spark.adobe.com/page/PkiNb/

http://www.folsomtelegraph.com/arti...auxiliary-spillway-project-nearing-completion

http://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Missions/Civil-Works/Folsom-Dam-Auxiliary-Spillway/
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
construction costs is likely to be in multiples of $100 million
yea but if they had said to y'all prior to the hole issues.. "This spillway has serious issues, we need a major and complete repair to update it to current standards and prevent long term future failure" you'd be facing almost the same pricetag (minus debris work. plus excavation that the collapse provided free of charge) you are now.

At least this way the feds are helping you out more than if you took care of your infrastructure yourself in a timely fashion.
 
At least this way the feds are helping you out more than if you took care of your infrastructure yourself in a timely fashion.

If, the lawsuit during FERC Re-licensing Hearings in 2005 was not ignored; or Stimulus Funds in 2009 on this shovel-ready job were utilized. During the drought where large-scale releases were not required, safety could have been improved. Rather than the Stimulus being largely wasted, something constructive could have been accomplished.

https://law.ucdavis.edu/library/new...m-has-been-subject-of-lawsuits-for-years.html

http://calwatchdog.com/2011/07/20/feds-wasted-most-of-787-bil-ca-stimulus-money/
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Which federal agency is picking up the tab for this repair?
I think when states have 'natural disasters' its always through FEMA (but don't quote me).. and I doubt the feds will cover the entire repair bill! The water is used by companies that sell it, so hopefully they pay for most of the repairs.

 

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
I think when states have 'natural disasters' its always through FEMA (but don't quote me).. and I doubt the feds will cover the entire repair bill! The water is used by companies that sell it, so hopefully they pay for most of the repairs.

I went to fema.gov and there was no public assistance disaster covering the spillway failure. Only an emergency declaration which only covers life safety and life sustaining activities.
 

Ingrid

New Member
I think when states have 'natural disasters' its [federal aid] always through FEMA (but don't quote me)
Hi to and thanks for this thread fr a lurker - thought this npr article on problem of aging dams state-by-state might be interesting (CA rates higher than most states on how much it spends on dam safety, $/dam, btw) but also noticed this tidbit:

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/11/44718...unded-americas-dam-safety-problem-in-4-charts
 
I went to fema.gov and there was no public assistance disaster covering the spillway failure. Only an emergency declaration which only covers life safety and life sustaining activities.

That is probably because Gov. Brown decided to have a show-down with the Federal Gov't over sanctuary status. Politics over safety, yet again and, the Security issue to hide reports is troubling.Meanwhile, I applaud Blancolirio's Real Name Juan Browne YouTube Channel for his in-depth coverage of this issue as a Local. He has 30 videos up, so far including one today.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6SYmp3qb3uMCqXIp7mYmiAPeEVoazpUE

Would a Moderator be willing to include his Videos on the Quick Links Page?
 
Last edited:

Landru

Moderator
Staff member
That is probably because Gov. Brown decided to have a show-down with the Federal Gov't over sanctuary status. Politics over safety, yet again and, the Security issue to hide reports is troubling.Meanwhile, I applaud Blancolirio's YouTube Channel for his in-depth coverage of this issue as a Local. He has 30 videos up, so far including one today.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6SYmp3qb3uMCqXIp7mYmiAPeEVoazpUE
That doesn't mean there is any federal money.
 
The Press Briefing today, mentioned Roller-compacted Concrete for the Spillways. Both, Auxiliary (Gated) and Emergency; to be completed by Nov. 1 , 2017. Here is a short explanation of that process.

" For dam applications, RCC sections are built lift-by-lift in successive horizontal layers resulting in a downstream slope that resembles a concrete staircase. Once a layer is placed, it can immediately support the earth-moving equipment to place the next layer. After RCC is deposited on the lift surface, small dozers typically spread it in one-foot-thick (300mm) layers."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roller-compacted_concrete
 
That doesn't mean there is any federal money.

True. I did not want to get into the intricacies of Federal vs. State Spending on Infrastructure. Politics are divisive when debunking. Have you watched any of the Videos? In my opinion, they are quite factual and informative.
 

deirdre

Senior Member.
Hi to and thanks for this thread fr a lurker - thought this npr article on problem of aging dams state-by-state might be interesting (CA rates higher than most states on how much it spends on dam safety, $/dam, btw) but also noticed this tidbit:

http://www.npr.org/2015/10/11/44718...unded-americas-dam-safety-problem-in-4-charts
Thanks! pretty sure Oroville is regulated by feds though. The FEMA page on CA aid says
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
deirdre Oroville Dam Spillway Thread: Quick Links Oroville Dam 2
CRM114 Oroville Dam Drains in The Spillway Walls - How Do They Work? Oroville Dam 196
Mick West Oroville Dam Main Spillway Waterfall Erosion Watch Oroville Dam 249
Mick West Pre-Failure Oroville Dam Spillway Historical Images Oroville Dam 81
Mick West Oroville Dam Spillway Failure Oroville Dam 1535
CeruleanBlu Video summary of Independent Forensic Team Report on Oroville Dam Oroville Dam 1
JCL Odd Cloud Over Oroville Dam (Spray Cloud) Oroville Dam 14
Mick West Debunked: FEMA Predicting ''Imminent Oroville Dam Collapse" Oroville Dam 0
Mick West Oroville Watershed Weather Forecast, Lake Level and Inflow Calculations Oroville Dam 194
Mick West Spillway Failure and Possible Collapse of Guajataca Dam, Puerto Rico Oroville Dam 5
G Claim: China refused to hand "key data" to WHO delegation during the recent investigation in Wuhan Coronavirus COVID-19 29
Mick West Book Review: "9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation" 9/11 28
Truthful New published physics article points out NIST limitations and need for new investigation. Conspiracy Theories 3
Ray Von Geezer Einstein: "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" Quotes Debunked 6
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Safety Board publish reports on MH17 crash, Tuesday Oct 13 Flight MH17 14
Mick West What would a new WTC7 Collapse Investigation look like? 9/11 127
Soulfly DOJ investigation of the AP debunk the government controlling the media? General Discussion 0
SeanDWalker "Investigation X: UFO out break" UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 2
Leifer Great self investigation of Herbalife General Discussion 2

Related Articles

Top