3 ms·
I'll have to check that out, I do have one question tho (maybe someone asnwerd it already somewhere?)..if everyone knew soil was underneath then wasn't this pre
by moocowtruck 8y ago
I'll have to check that out, I do have one question tho (maybe someone asnwerd it already somewhere?)..if everyone knew soil was underneath then wasn't this preventable ? or was it one of those..well we can't get the money to fix it until after something bad happens? I'd say it's pretty obvious soil erodes by now, and that having it underneath large structures alone is not a great idea.
- Kadin 8y agoIt's not that straightforward; there was concrete on top of the soil, it had functioned as designed for many years. There are problems with infrastructure maintenance at a national level, and lots of deferred maintenance/upgrades. Given that, there's no reason to suspect that upgrading the spillway prior to failure would have seemed like a higher priority than many other remediation projects. There was not an a priori way of knowing it was going to fail, instead of a bridge abutment or whatever else was presumably repaired first, and would have had to wait if the spillway work had happened first instead.
- shereadsthenews 8y agoThat’s right. If they’d cut down that one tree in time we probably would still have the original spillway.
- carapace 8y ago> A report released in January 2018 by an independent forensic team organized by the Assn. of State Dam Safety Officials contended that the dam’s owner, the Department of Water Resources, was “significantly overconfident and complacent about the integrity of its State Water Project civil infrastructure, including dams.” > The report found that periodic inspections of the spillway failed to identify the original design flaws and the subsequent deterioration of the spillway’s integrity.