More flood-control history

I write in response to Sandra Guldman's criticism of my letter to the editor regarding the Corte Madera Creek Flood Control Project.

I had stated two things that seemed to have upset Ms. Guldman.

First, was that her group, the Friends of Corte Madera Creek, did not initially support the Ross Valley Watershed Management idea.

This was true at the time and Ms. Guldman appears to confirm it in her letter.

As I understand it, Ms. Guldman does currently support non-structural flood protection methods.

Second, I said that despite the existing Kentfield engineered channel being such a technical and environmental failure, the county and the Corps of Engineers "engaged in efforts to expand the concrete ditch."

Ms. Guldman claims that my comment is misleading because "lowering the bottom of the natural streambed and stabilizing the bank with minimal concrete to accommodate higher flows" do not "necessarily" involve expanding the concrete ditch.

However, I think most would agree that deepening the channel and adding more concrete would indeed qualify as expanding the concrete ditch.

But more important, what Ms. Guldman does not mention or perhaps is not aware of is that a bigger concrete ditch project was "necessary" because the corps would not have funded a smaller, more limited project. The U.S. Congress authorized funds for a large concrete channel in Corte Madera Creek and the corps argued incessantly that legally it could not spend that money on a smaller scale project.


Further, the Water Resources Development Act vastly favors large structural projects over smaller watershed management projects because the principle criteria is "economic benefit."

Guidance for these procedures was updated in 2008, but economic benefits still far outweigh local, social, and environmental factors.

Edward Yates, Larkspur

San Anselmo's risky move

Residents of San Anselmo were just put on the hook for a minimum of $150,000 for the flood-control study, $600,000 if the proposed project doesn't get built and more than $3.5 million it does.

You don't know about this?

Most San Anselmo residents don't.

The Town Council voted to take the $8 million grant, which is supposed to cover half the cost of Memorial Park floodwaters detention pit. This is an unfunded liability the town can't afford.

And yes the town is responsible for that amount and all cost overruns above the "guesstimates" of the true cost.

Yes, Ross Valley needs a flood plan, but San Anselmo shouldn't be put into bankruptcy to fund this.

Mario Territo, San Anselmo

Water use and wisdom

A little rain and heads are back in the sand?

Your article says that despite the welcome rains our reservoirs are still below normal. The math works out to about 7,900 acre-feet below normal, which your "Water Watch" chart says is a year's supply for more than 23,700 families.

And what if we have a three-year drought? Or if global warming permanently decreases the local "normal" rainfall?

Do we wait until then to take action on baseline usage with higher second tier fees, lawns, swimming pools, population/usage growth, catch basins, reservoir expansion, desalinization and other issues?

A more accurate headline would be: "Denial still in great shape; our water supply not so much."

Ron Skellenger, San Anselmo