Forums » Local & National Politics

All Forums:  Advertisers | Book Club | Community Watch | General Discussion | Politics | Recipes | Support     New Topics & Replies

Levee Protection

    • 1140 posts
    101
    January 12, 2016 6:57:01 PM PST
    That explains it, some of the flood mud settled in your brain cleanup. Your cerebral cortex is full of silt.
    • 2563 posts
    102
    January 12, 2016 8:10:04 PM PST
    This is a story about Valmeyer, Illinois. A town that decided to move to get out of the flood plain. But not all residents moved.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/a-town-drowned-and-resurrected-on-a-bluff-misses-its-old-home.html
    What are you thoughts about living in a flood plain? Or rebuilding in a flood plain?
    • 6429 posts
    103
    January 26, 2016 1:45:45 PM PST
    My thoughts have not changed, we the people had no problem living here in Yuba County until supervisors got in bed with developers. In 1993 the County supervisors approached RD 784 to build water systems that would permit development of the Flood plains. The Board knew the levees were not safe and declined. Time went by and a new board was elected which was more progressive and cared not about human lives and soon residents lived in Plumas lakes even after the feather river Levee failed in 1997, the Developers and residents came, assured by the County officials the levees would hold and besides the developers would give the residents insurance.

    Now the plumas lakes area has thousands of homes, the Feather River has a set back levee , the Bear River has a set back levee , but, the Yuba River South Levee still has no work of any relevance done to the site of the 1986 levee failure site at Levee Mile marker 0.79. The County tried to construct a Slurry wall 80 feet into the ground under the levee from the Highway 70 Bridge to the UNION Pacific Rail Road, as required by the Corps for levee certification but only constructed 40 feet deep , and that 40 feet deep construction went only 3/4 of the distance planned before running into the Boulders dumped into the Levee break in 1986, some body was not on the ball at the county.

    Here it is 2016 and the same engineers are still working for the county, the boulders are still under the levee, the Slurry wall is still only 3/4 built, there are no sand berms from the Bridge to the Shad Road, the FEMA says even so the levee is accredited, TRLIA still says the Levee is Certified by the corps on every page they put out to show the people how safe the levees are.

    Lets put that lie to sleep now, In 2007 TRLIA officials convinced a Corps Engineer to Certify the levee , but I saw he did not meet Federal regulations 44 CFR 65.10 and the Home office of the corps contacted the county and removed the certification in 2009.

    When the County says the Corps certified the levee in 2007, they are right but to be truthful , they must also say the Corps removed it later and to this day has not restored it.
    • 4977 posts
    104
    January 26, 2016 2:08:16 PM PST
    There have been issues and floods in the past so to say we lived without problems is misleading.
    Building homes in Plumas Lake was foolish. I think someday they will get wet.
    The levee breech site of 1986 has or hasn't had work done, depending on who you ask. There is an awful lot of dirt/berm/ etc. built up on the land side as reinforcement. You can see it if you drive behind WalMart.

    It still comes back to getting some type of expert or authority to challenge the current state of the levee at the breech site.
    Cleanup, after 9 years of being involved in RD784, you view yourself as kind of an "expert" (my words, not yours).
    My comment about all this over and over is make something happen! Your local supervisor Vasquez or Greigo, or both, should be able to give answers to these hard questions. It isn't threatening to ask for proof or substantiation of levee worthiness. Have a friend ask this if you are worried they won't respond to you.

    I guess it all comes down to the same thing: When are you going to stop this continual complaining and actually do something to get answers?
    • 6429 posts
    105
    January 26, 2016 7:00:22 PM PST
    "It still comes back to getting some type of expert or authority to challenge the current state of the levee at the breech site.
    Cleanup, after 9 years of being involved in RD784, you view yourself as kind of an "expert" (my words, not yours)."

    You only have to look at pictures or remember what the Yuba River South bank levee looked like before TRLIA in 2009 after I brought out the fact TRLIA had claimed they constructed sand berms from the State Highway 70 Bridge just past Marysvilles city limits, to the SHAD pad to protect the people from levee seepage. I contacted three EXPERT Engineers from the state who met with me and confirmed there was no sand berms there as did the Attorney and newsman who was with us.

    Further when I showed the group there was homes near the levee, and GIANT TREES and it was impossible to construct sand berms there.

    Those three experts saw what I just elaborated on but they were as all honest "experts" are who agree with me, removed from standing up with the truth. WHY?

    Can you imagine the people finding out the Officials have rooked the people from their Tax Funds to construct levees as the Engineer working for the county did and the county officials looking the other way?

    And, this does not even mention the Breach site or the Slurry wall Or the seepage berm just past the Union Pacific Railroad that TRLIA only completed the bottom of and left the 10 feet deep sidewall UNDONE. Remember, The Corps of Engineers refused to certify the levees, and remember to be Certified by the Corps as a safe levee is superior to accreditation by FEMA of a watered down certification by calling a levee system certified. You remember the Weakest link is the breaking point, the Site of the levee 1986 break is one of Four weak links.
    • 6429 posts
    106
    January 26, 2016 8:45:08 PM PST
    The "new way"of accrediting or certifying levees is not people friendly because politicians and crooked officials can get a levee "system" certified even if Federal requirements of a solid foundation are not there, How? They do not inspect known defects such as NO FOUNDATION in a levee and certify the levee "system".

    The Yuba River South Levee was not certified , accreditation or any safe notice from the people, the false paid certification by a Engineer who worked for TRLIA was the only person who could be forced to sign his name, even though the forced , paid certification fits the needs of the officials, TRLIA, politicians, groups but it does nothing for people.

    Progress because of people having a desire to come here for work is one thing, but progress from officials wanting to fill up homes like is happening from Lincoln to Sacramento already, is fool hardy.
    • 4977 posts
    107
    January 26, 2016 9:15:19 PM PST
    Nice message; what have you accomplished?

    You've done nothing to effect change or force a call to action.
    In the past, you stated, "those that need to know, do" and so on.
    Were these statements hogwash as you are not getting anything accomplished?
    The levee did not fail in 1997 and now there is a new, set back levee. It is time to either make something happen or quit complaining.
    • 6429 posts
    108
    January 26, 2016 10:46:13 PM PST
    " the levee did not fail in 1997" You mean the Yuba or Feather River? If you mean the Yuba, Yuba county hired a Engineering firm to inspect the Yuba and they said " If the Feather had not failed in 1997, the Yuba would have.

    That was clear enough for most of us, if we get more water from this El nino season with a large melting snow pattern in February , who knows?
    • 4977 posts
    109
    January 27, 2016 8:51:13 AM PST
    Yuba would have failed where? The "experts" said the '86 breech site "performed as expected".

    It still comes back to getting an authoritative entity bringing about a call to action.

    Your Team Solo approach is not working. This year is 30 since the '86 flood.
    • 6429 posts
    110
    January 27, 2016 9:25:00 AM PST
    The "experts" said the '86 breech site "performed as expected".

    That statement was taken from a letter to me from the chief Engineer of the Corps regarding the sand berm placed in front of the levee in 2005 after the Yuba River had risen to the toe of the levee in 2006, not a very good test since the farmers in 1909 withstood that height with just the Morrison grade.

    Yuba would have failed where?
    Kleinfelder engineering was referring to the Yuba River Levee as failing if the Feather had not relieved the pressure by breaking.


    • 4977 posts
    111
    January 27, 2016 10:32:59 AM PST
    Rex, you've brought forth some very interesting points and information. Some is refuted, some isn't, some is opinion.
    If you put enough water in any levee system it will fail! This is what I tried to tell you previously. All the experts have to do is say "the high water event was a once in 100 or 200 year experience" and then, of course, you can't expect a levee to withstand that type of event.

    What are you going to do to cause a call to action? Posting old facts over and over is doing nothing. The levee might be a train wreck waiting to happen - PROVE IT! Officials and experts say the whole thing is certified.
    How are you going to overcome that?
    What are you going to do to challenge the status quo?
    What are you going to have in place or do when your version of facts are challenged or refuted?
    Posting here does absolutely nothing. You need experts and authorities. Elect a new Supervisor that will take on this challenge and investigate? Ask Vasquez to do it.
    If none if this is doable, is it possible you are wrong?
    • 4977 posts
    112
    January 27, 2016 10:33:40 AM PST
    BTW - did you notice some of the candidates for Abe's position?
    • 6429 posts
    113
    January 27, 2016 10:43:45 AM PST
    Since you used statements from the top Expert in the State at the time, Colonel Ronald Light in a letter to me, his final message in the levee was," We agree with you in TRLIAS levee work." The Corps of engineers chief engineer knew TRLIAS levee work Sucked!
    • 4977 posts
    114
    January 27, 2016 10:54:11 AM PST
    Great. Now how are YOU going to use that information to create a call to action?

    Is your legacy going to be making something happen or continual complaining on YF?

    Where's all the support you said you had? Did they go away?
    • 6429 posts
    115
    January 27, 2016 1:34:42 PM PST


    6259 posts

    106






    January 26, 2016 8:45:08 PM PST

    Quote

    The "new way"of accrediting or certifying levees is not people friendly because politicians and crooked officials can get a levee "system" certified even if Federal requirements of a solid foundation are not there, How? They do not inspect known defects such as NO FOUNDATION in a levee and certify the levee "system".

    The officials of the county in order to move on their agenda of development brought in the "System", a unbelievable levee plan that is as false as other TRLIA ploys. A certification of the Yuba River south bank by the Corps of engineers is just that, they investigate the section at the Site of the 1986 break and say they will not certify the levee as they did in 2009 after TRLIA had paid off an Sacramento Corps employee. How did TRLIA get around that? They got FEMA to say accreditation the "System " , Not the dangerous break site at 0.79 Levee mile mark as the people if they were awake would demand, but accredit the whole system. Un believable! What is your opinion on that?
    • 6429 posts
    116
    January 27, 2016 2:32:29 PM PST
    What is anyone's opinion on that?
    • 4977 posts
    117
    January 27, 2016 2:42:58 PM PST
    Okay, you view this as corruption and proof of improper conduct.

    I can 100% guarantee you TRLIA will provide documentation and expert opinion to overcome your accusation and what you've insinuated here. You know it, I know it, we all know it. One guy in Olivehurst making claims doesn't get noticed, period.

    What are you going to do other than complain here?
    Have you thought about why you are unable to get any traction causing a call to action?

    Are you hoping if you complain enough someone else will take up the fight?

    After all these years, the lawsuit, work done, certification, setback levee, and experts making claims, you're going to have to do better to force a call to action.
    • 6429 posts
    118
    January 27, 2016 3:21:00 PM PST
    No opinion Eh? Wait until the County restores their development plans for the Foothills, maybe they will certify the whole foothills as certified , whether the people like it or not, what then?
    • 4977 posts
    119
    January 27, 2016 5:58:53 PM PST
    What the heck are you talking about?
    The people spoke about Yuba Highlands, for example.
    Are trying to say you expect the foothill people to take up the levee cause for you?
    • 6429 posts
    120
    January 27, 2016 8:35:17 PM PST
    I took up the foothills cause in Marysville against those who were ignoring the Vote of the people.
    • 6429 posts
    121
    January 27, 2016 8:57:02 PM PST
    There was three supervisors from the valley who voted over the foothills people will against Hal Stocker and Mary Jane Griego for developments. The developers have not given up.
    • 4977 posts
    122
    January 27, 2016 9:30:19 PM PST
    What are you going to do, other than complain, to cause a call to action on the issue of the 86 breech site?
    Stop playing victim and show some leadership if you are so convinced you're right.
    • 6429 posts
    123
    January 28, 2016 8:39:01 AM PST
    How did TRLIA get around that? They got FEMA to say accreditation the "System " , Not the dangerous break site at 0.79 Levee mile mark as the people if they were awake would demand, but accredit the whole system. Un believable! What is your opinion on that?
    • 4977 posts
    124
    January 28, 2016 8:56:33 AM PST
    What is my opinion? Have you not been paying attention?
    IF -big IF - what you say is true, then get an expert or an authority that can challenge the status quo, that's my opinion.
    That's most people's opinion.
    Just like when people don't like a law, the status quo has to be challenged.

    It appears you're trying to make people aware there could be a problem and you're hoping someone else does the heavy lifting for you. This is your campaign; find an entity willing to investigate.
    What about your supervisor? What about Dick Boyd? He likes challenging the government and is knowledgeable.
    There are public legal entities like CRLA that can help if you actually have a valid case.
    Yes, I know in your mind you think you have all the evidence in the world. You need something that will stand up to more than your opinion. Most likely it will be a professional and/or a legal entity to have the clout to do this, unless you can motivate your supervisor.
    You've said over and over that those that need to know, do and you have all the support you need. Well, looks like the only thing stopping you is you.

    Good luck.
    • 6429 posts
    125
    January 28, 2016 9:37:44 AM PST
    Now the plumas lakes area has thousands of homes, the Feather River has a set back levee , the Bear River has a set back levee , but, the Yuba River South Levee still has no work of any relevance done to the site of the 1986 levee failure site at Levee Mile marker 0.79. The County tried to construct a Slurry wall 80 feet into the ground under the levee from the Highway 70 Bridge to the UNION Pacific Rail Road, as required by the Corps for levee certification but only constructed 40 feet deep , and that 40 feet deep construction went only 3/4 of the distance planned before running into the Boulders dumped into the Levee break in 1986, some body was not on the ball at the county
    • 4977 posts
    126
    January 28, 2016 10:17:05 AM PST
    You're starting to sound like you want to be able to say "I told you so" and take credit for bringing this to everyone's attention - but you don't want to do any of the hard work it will take to effect action.

    You last post is old, old news. What are you going to do to go forward?
    • 6429 posts
    127
    January 28, 2016 10:48:11 AM PST
    Now it is shown the people who have taken over our county government in their plan for development of flood plains in Plumas lake after spending our taxes on a folly, have failed. Their next plan is taking over the Eastern county farming land that supplies food to the people to build homes.

    Again I warn the people of the Foothills the county of Yuba has caved in to developments and your former supervisor who fought against interlopers from other places is no longer available to defend your rights. You have to stand up for your rights yourself.
    • 6429 posts
    128
    March 10, 2016 11:18:35 AM PST
    "There was three supervisors from the valley who voted over the foothills people will against Hal Stocker and Mary Jane Griego for developments. The developers have not given up. "

    In the Appeal democrat a day or so ago, it was stated the Developers of Magnolia ranch just above Wheatland had told the Yuba County supervisors in open meeting last Tuesday that they were removing the request to build the Magnolia development.

    Why?
    • 6429 posts
    129
    March 10, 2016 12:31:04 PM PST
    I ask why because similar to the three supervisors who voted over the Foothills people's desire for no development in the foothills, is three supervisors again met in closed session and voted against the people's Desire and For the Developers desire!

    Government has taken over the peoples duty all across the country and the people are finally waking up.
    • 475 posts
    130
    March 10, 2016 1:01:21 PM PST
    cleanup ask why. My thought is they removed the request hoping that the matter wouldn't be put on the ballot for the Yuba County voters to say yea or nay.
    • 4977 posts
    131
    March 10, 2016 2:44:01 PM PST
    I know most of the supervisors. I am disappointed that they were willing to vote against the very people that elected them. At some point I'll find out the real reason. I know a couple of them really thought the project would spur growth and opportunities in Yuba County. I got the impression, but may be wrong, that the risk of the county being on the hook for expenses was worth it them them. Having Beale and OPUD connected would be a good thing in my opinion. There are so many unanswered questions about Magnolia Ranch.
    While the project is off the drawing board right now, there has been quite a bit of money invested for several years on this effort. It might be stalled but I doubt very seriously it is over.
    • 6429 posts
    132
    March 10, 2016 6:56:43 PM PST
    ." I know a couple of them really thought the project would spur growth and opportunities in Yuba County."

    I disagree with the reason for development votes by the supervisors, I say it is because the county supervisors in 2004 got in bed with developers while forgetting there was no demand for houses in Yuba County since there were thousands constructed between here and Roseville. Also, since the engineers say the Yuba River levee is safe as can be , in fact, after the Corps of engineers removed the Corps certification from the Yuba Levees, Yuba County through TRLIA certified it themselves, The corps stated the Yuba was not safe, but Yuba County Supervisors through TR:IA said it was Safe. I think it is over.
    • 6429 posts
    133
    March 16, 2016 5:59:49 PM PDT
    Further, over the past 15 years the officials of the Corps have removed the requirements of the Corps to certify levees by inspecting the levees from top to bottom and now permit a Engineer to certify his own work such as TRLIA having their own engineer certify.

    The FEMA also permits the Engineer who constructed the levee work to overlook such as the foundation of the levee being washed away in the 1986 Flood and call the whole mile of levee " as a system " certified , instead of inspecting the section that failed in1986.

    This is what happens when greed sets in and the Board of supervisors appointed officials are given the right to look away and tell the Engineers to not look at the Most dangerous section of levee in RD 784 levee mile marker 0.79 , and call the Whole levee certified.
    • 4977 posts
    134
    March 16, 2016 9:29:19 PM PDT
    How is the levee issue, the one you have been unable up prove, the fault of the current BOS?

    You have now spent another year making claims. Still looking expert or authority agreeing with you.
    One of the few on the BOS is your friend Mary Jane. Why aren't you demanding answers from her?
    • 4977 posts
    135
    March 16, 2016 9:31:10 PM PDT
    Boy...spelling. Unable to prove;
    Still no expert or authority.
    • 6429 posts
    136
    March 28, 2016 10:00:16 AM PDT
    2Grands, in order to change our government from the people directing the government workers to the Government workers directing the people, people were brought in to fill offices with people who are behind the, Local, State and Federal big government plan, I Mo.

    As far as " No expert or authority " I have brought forth a letter to me from the Chief Engineer of the Corps of Engineers stating I am right regarding the Yuba River south bank levee being not safe. The Letter has been posted here on this forum.



    • 6429 posts
    137
    May 16, 2016 7:51:17 PM PDT
    IF -big IF - what you say is true, then get an expert or an authority that can challenge the status quo, that's my opinion"

    Recently two members of board told me the Helicopter fly over of the 1986 levee break site showed I was right in my telling of the Levee break site not being able to accept construction because the area of about 2 acres was damaged so bad the cost would be prohibitive.

    That is why the Corps of Engineers removed their Certification by one of their persons and TRLIA had to use their own engineer to " certify" the levee, when the Corps would not!

    AS I have said many times, the Yuba River south bank levee at the 1986 break site can not feasibly be repaired, has no foundation, and has a partially built slurry wall only leaving the people behind the levee susceptible to floods. Unbelievable!
    • 4977 posts
    138
    May 16, 2016 8:25:26 PM PDT
    Okay Rex, more than two political officials both past and present have told me that you are dead wrong and this is why you can't prove a thing.
    Again, if all the people you claim have knowledge of an issue and don't come forth then they may be telling you what you want to hear.
    The letters you posted asked you to stop sending government employees on wild goose chases and wasting their resources.

    All you have to do is provide solid proof (you haven't so far). You've been told a number of times ( and I know you're smart enough to figure out) that many legal firms would jump on the case if what you stated had merit. 30 years. Prove it. Take the proof to a legal firm.
    • 2563 posts
    139
    May 17, 2016 7:53:12 AM PDT
    Mr. Archer reminds me of the little Dutch boy with his finger in the hole in the dike.

    In a positive way : A small effort averts a major disaster.

    In a more contemporary, negative way : Curing the symptom(s) instead of attacking the real cause(s). Example : the "War on (some) Terror". Or trying to control floods with levees only.
    Or relying on people with political savvy to make engineering judgments Or relying on people with engineering savvy to make political decisions.
    • 4977 posts
    140
    May 17, 2016 9:00:39 AM PDT
    The problem is cleanup makes his claims on this forum but does nothing to actually make something happen - IF what he claims is actually true. If he had irrefutable evidence a legal firm would jump on it. After 30 years, it is obvious he does not.
    There isn't a person in Yuba County that would not support legal action if claims of fraud, misuse of funds, and falsification of information could be proven.

    There is a very long and tired thread on this forum about cleanup and his very public disdain for local government and the reasons why.
    • 4977 posts
    141
    June 25, 2016 8:38:21 PM PDT
    Last Friday, 6/24, the Chamber of commerce had a levee presentation.
    Work is being done with more to go. Someone asked about Yuba Supervisors taking responsibility for Yuba levees. What this did was keep FE!A from mapping more land into a flood zone, costing homeowners a ton of money. Both Yuba and Sutter are working with/fighting the Flood insurance people. In the near future all the Yuba levees will have 200 year protection and FEMA will certify them.
    That's it in a nutshell and probably not a good description.
    I wish cleanup would have been there to bring up questions and let us all hear the answers. Levee work is a complicated process with all the entities and jurisdictions.
    • 4977 posts
    142
    June 30, 2016 3:48:10 PM PDT
    Cleanup-
    I see TRLIA is suing someone(s) in today's Appeal Democrat. The exhibit shows an area of levee off of Garden, Riverside, Cohn. Know anything about it?
    • 6429 posts
    143
    August 3, 2016 10:24:17 AM PDT
    The certifying of the South bank of the Yuba River Levee by Ric Reinhardt TRLIAS project Engineer was sent on to the FEMA for Accreditation after being refused by the Corps was called a "System" certification which results from investigation of certain areas of the Yuba River South Bank , not all sections. TRLIA did not inspect the Section of levee that broke in 1986 because that section has no foundation which is required for any certification of levees.

    In 2007 the Sacramento Corps of engineers certified the south bank of the Yuba River levee without following the laws of levee safety requiring a foundation to be constructed under any levee that is to be certified and during the flood of 1986 the Foundation was washed away and has never been replaced.

    Any certification of the south bank of the Yuba River levee is not legal until a foundation is constructed under that section of levee that broke in 1986. TRLIA,s Paul Brunner states to this day that the corps of engineers certification in 2007 is still in effect but it is not because the Corps removed the Sacramento certification in 2009!



    • 4977 posts
    144
    August 3, 2016 11:36:02 AM PDT
    How come no official has done anything about this?
    • 4977 posts
    145
    August 3, 2016 11:38:19 AM PDT
    And now it appears Obama paid off Iran for a rumored ransom which he denies...to the tune of $400 million.
    $400 million paid to Iran (that isn't argued), a country that has stated it wants to wipe out America.

    Go ahead and tell me again how I should fear Trump.
    • 4977 posts
    146
    August 3, 2016 11:38:42 AM PDT
    Oops - wrong thread. Sorry.
    • 6429 posts
    147
    August 3, 2016 11:41:36 AM PDT


    Below is the requirements for Foundations under Levee sections and these foundations are required to support the levee under loads of high water through leakage through and under the levee. When an Engineer certifies a levee as a 100 or 200 year levee and only checks several sections of levee that have not failed but does not check the broken section as certifiable is criminal. The levee is to be certified as protecting people, not as protecting officials in their endeavors.


    CFR › Title 44 › Chapter I › Subchapter B › Part 65 › Section 65.10
    ..
    44 CFR 65.10 - Mapping of areas protected by levee systems.





    eCFR


    Authorities (U.S. Code)





    Beta! The text on the eCFR tab represents the unofficial eCFR text at ecfr.gov.



    § 65.10 Mapping of areas protected by levee systems.

    (a) General. For purposes of the NFIP, FEMA will only recognize in its flood hazard and risk mapping effort those levee systems that meet, and continue to meet, minimum design, operation, and maintenance standards that are consistent with the level of protection sought through the comprehensive flood plain management criteria established by § 60.3 of this subchapter. Accordingly, this section describes the types of information FEMA needs to recognize, on NFIP maps, that a levee system provides protection from the base flood. This information must be supplied to FEMA by the community or other party seeking recognition of such a levee system at the time a flood risk study or restudy is conducted, when a map revision under the provisions of part 65 of this subchapter is sought based on a levee system, and upon request by the Federal Insurance Administrator during the review of previously recognized structures. The FEMA review will be for the sole purpose of establishing appropriate risk zone determinations for NFIP maps and shall not constitute a determination by FEMA as to how a structure or system will perform in a flood event.

    (b) Design criteria. For levees to be recognized by FEMA, evidence that adequate design and operation and maintenance systems are in place to provide reasonable assurance that protection from the base flood exists must be provided. The following requirements must be met:

    (1) Freeboard.

    (i) Riverine levees must provide a minimum freeboard of three feet above the water-surface level of the base flood. An additional one foot above the minimum is required within 100 feet in either side of structures (such as bridges) riverward of the levee or wherever the flow is constricted. An additional one-half foot above the minimum at the upstream end of the levee, tapering to not less than the minimum at the downstream end of the levee, is also required.

    (ii) Occasionally, exceptions to the minimum riverine freeboard requirement described in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, may be approved. Appropriate engineering analyses demonstrating adequate protection with a lesser freeboard must be submitted to support a request for such an exception. The material presented must evaluate the uncertainty in the estimated base flood elevation profile and include, but not necessarily be limited to an assessment of statistical confidence limits of the 100-year discharge; changes in stage-discharge relationships; and the sources, potential, and magnitude of debris, sediment, and ice accumulation. It must be also shown that the levee will remain structurally stable during the base flood when such additional loading considerations are imposed. Under no circumstances will freeboard of less than two feet be accepted.

    (iii) For coastal levees, the freeboard must be established at one foot above the height of the one percent wave or the maximum wave runup (whichever is greater) associated with the 100-year stillwater surge elevation at the site.

    (iv) Occasionally, exceptions to the minimum coastal levee freeboard requirement described in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, may be approved. Appropriate engineering analyses demonstrating adequate protection with a lesser freeboard must be submitted to support a request for such an exception. The material presented must evaluate the uncertainty in the estimated base flood loading conditions. Particular emphasis must be placed on the effects of wave attack and overtopping on the stability of the levee. Under no circumstances, however, will a freeboard of less than two feet above the 100-year stillwater surge elevation be accepted.

    (2) Closures. All openings must be provided with closure devices that are structural parts of the system during operation and design according to sound engineering practice.

    (3) Embankment protection. Engineering analyses must be submitted that demonstrate that no appreciable erosion of the levee embankment can be expected during the base flood, as a result of either currents or waves, and that anticipated erosion will not result in failure of the levee embankment or foundation directly or indirectly through reduction of the seepage path and subsequent instability. The factors to be addressed in such analyses include, but are not limited to: Expected flow velocities (especially in constricted areas); expected wind and wave action; ice loading; impact of debris; slope protection techniques; duration of flooding at various stages and velocities; embankment and foundation materials; levee alignment, bends, and transitions; and levee side slopes.

    (4) Embankment and foundation stability. Engineering analyses that evaluate levee embankment stability must be submitted. The analyses provided shall evaluate expected seepage during loading conditions associated with the base flood and shall demonstrate that seepage into or through the levee foundation and embankment will not jeopardize embankment or foundation stability. An alternative analysis demonstrating that the levee is designed and constructed for stability against loading conditions for Case IV as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) manual, “Design and Construction of Levees” (EM 1110-2-1913, Chapter 6, Section II), may be used. The factors that shall be addressed in the analyses include: Depth of flooding, duration of flooding, embankment geometry and length of seepage path at critical locations, embankment and foundation materials, embankment compaction, penetrations, other design factors affecting seepage (such as drainage layers), and other design factors affecting embankment and foundation stability (such as berms).
    • 6429 posts
    148
    August 3, 2016 12:26:04 PM PDT


    6314 posts

    143






    August 3, 2016 10:24:17 AM PDT

    Quote

    The certifying of the South bank of the Yuba River Levee by Ric Reinhardt TRLIAS project Engineer was sent on to the FEMA for Accreditation after being refused by the Corps was called a "System" certification which results from investigation of certain areas of the Yuba River South Bank , not all sections. TRLIA did not inspect the Section of levee that broke in 1986 because that section has no foundation which is required for any certification of levees.

    In 2007 the Sacramento Corps of engineers certified the south bank of the Yuba River levee without following the laws of levee safety requiring a foundation to be constructed under any levee that is to be certified and during the flood of 1986 the Foundation was washed away and has never been replaced.

    Any certification of the south bank of the Yuba River levee is not legal until a foundation is constructed under that section of levee that broke in 1986. TRLIA,s Paul Brunner states to this day that the corps of engineers certification in 2007 is still in effect but it is not because the Corps removed the Sacramento certification in 2009!
    • 4977 posts
    149
    August 3, 2016 12:26:24 PM PDT
    Can you explain why with all the eyes that have to review the projects and payments, and all the millions of dollars involved, no one notices or does anything with this information you present?
    What's the missing link?
    • 6429 posts
    150
    August 3, 2016 12:41:06 PM PDT
    The non audits of 2004, 2005,2006 and 2007 by TRLIA of Multi millions of Grant funds and Developer fees, the 2005 massive increase in Yuba County employees and positions, for starters.