Recently I had a conversation about the potential of add on issues concerning the Ford Dam removal where a third party brushed them off as “Speculation” which is not accurate.
My father worked in an engineering environment when I was younger, he used to practice technical presentations on me. I was schooled in the scientific process. After years in computing, have learned to look for the direct and indirect influencing factors. The detail if you’ll have it, whether apparent or not apparent. I refused to be called a guru or expert because those are just titles and often misleading.
To be clear, the report by GEI was thorough concerning the DAM and have a 80% accuracy projection with estimated falling 30% to 50% additional on the high end. To complicate those estimates there appear to be critical missing detail and impact not accounted for in those 80% and 30% to 50% estimates.
I would bet, the cost of getting a report tailored for removal caused the 16% percent overage for the 70K granted for the engineering.
Here’s a few items that were passed off as speculation concerning the Main Street Dam.
1). Removing the Ford dam removes the buffer if upstream issues occur.
2). Removing the Ford Dam will reduce the water table as the Mainstreet Dam does not hold sufficient water to offset the surface water reduction. Removal lowers the surface water water somewhere around 20 feet.
3). The course of the river is not accurately projected as removing the Ford Dam increases water flow for the upper dam discharge.
4). Development is planned for the substantial property gained by private interests that are slated for recover dollars which increases the hazard factor for the Mainstreet and Broucek Dams.
I’d suggest my statements are educated assumptions based on logic just like GEI’s review document. ‘d suggest mine are better than a 80% accuracy rate and I don’t have anything to gain but retaining my property value.
Oh yea, I do have a moral objection when one person in a family directly and critically influences the use of public funds that result in artistically landscaping private property, especially when that property already increases hundreds of thousands of dollars in value, all the while undermining the impact on of the action on the whole community.
What's next? 