...
In essence, my main point here, if there is structural damage, the gates may not open ( notice they are not all open). Or, once open, they might get stuck while open. (my hypothesis is that this explains the low release. Fear of a Folsom like failure).
...
Quoting: Prayandprepare000 I think the gates are all open, aren't they?
And no doubt DWR is worried about everything working right, but (just my opinion) doubt if they would hesitate to use the gates based on the known issues. They honest-to-God believe everything is fine and will work as planned.
I would instead put my money on DWR thinking
"Let's fill up our piggy-bank as fast as possible and start counting the dough, baby!" Which pisses me off because the supposedly mandatory flood pool reservation is based on historical records of how much flood storage they MIGHT STILL need. Since DWR can't see into the future, it would behoove them to follow well-known, best-case conservative storage management engineering guidelines
even at the risk of ending up a few acre-ft short of a full dam in May. And I doubt they'll be short at all with the next round of ARk storms rolling in.
Not sure what kind of dumb-assed game they're playing here, but they could have got a jump on maintaining flood storage four days ago by spilling. Everyone knew what was coming, even GLP. Now they can't release much faster if they wanted to because the Sacramento is flooding. They damn well could have started spilling last Saturday and made room by now without causing any problems downstream.
At the end of yesterday, 3/14, they already exceeded the upper storage limit by 42,000 acre-ft. It will probably be double that today. I'm sure they figure inflows will drop off as the week goes on, and then they'll draw the reservoir back down to the flood reservation limit. We know how that's probably going to work out. It's the ABV TOC column on this data set: [
link to cdec.water.ca.gov (secure)]
Trunion anchor stuff:
