http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/02/20/reporters-notes-redesigning-the-bay/ Science, Environment, and Nature in the SF Bay Area Sat, 21 Nov 2009 22:39:48 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/02/20/reporters-notes-redesigning-the-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-62817 Matthew Booker Thu, 02 Apr 2009 20:25:54 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/?p=1399#comment-62817 @Linus Hollis: Bad ideas never die, they just recirculate. The idea to dam the Golden Gate was first proposed in the 1870s by C. E. Grunsky, one of the Bay Area's greatest engineering minds. Grunsky later suggested moving the dams inside the bay, perhaps to the Carquinez Straits, to protect the delta from salinity incursions. Everyone knows about the Reber Plan, the last and most highly articulated version of in-bay dams. The Army Corps desperately did not want to build it, and got funding for the Bay Model to show what a disaster it would create. Today we hear about damming the Golden Gate, one of the most costly ecological disasters in world history. Only possible dam to compare it to: The Three Gorges in China, which would be substantially smaller. @Linus Hollis: Bad ideas never die, they just recirculate. The idea to dam the Golden Gate was first proposed in the 1870s by C. E. Grunsky, one of the Bay Area's greatest engineering minds. Grunsky later suggested moving the dams inside the bay, perhaps to the Carquinez Straits, to protect the delta from salinity incursions. Everyone knows about the Reber Plan, the last and most highly articulated version of in-bay dams. The Army Corps desperately did not want to build it, and got funding for the Bay Model to show what a disaster it would create. Today we hear about damming the Golden Gate, one of the most costly ecological disasters in world history. Only possible dam to compare it to: The Three Gorges in China, which would be substantially smaller.

]]> http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/2009/02/20/reporters-notes-redesigning-the-bay/comment-page-1/#comment-62432 Linus Hollis, ScD Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:55:32 +0000 http://www.kqed.org/quest/blog/?p=1399#comment-62432 The 5 foot rise in the bay by 2100 is VERY optimistic. Even so, the freeways around the bay would be mostly underwater, as would $2-3 Trillion in infrastructure and property. This is why it is time to dike and lock the Golden Gate. Sure, it would cost $15 billion, but it would permanently save all that infrastructure. The other side effect: no more water crisis in SoCal as all that now unneeded fresh water coming through the Delta would have to be diverted. Pays for itself. The Bay used to be an estuary until the Golden Gate developed. We'd just be restoring it! The 5 foot rise in the bay by 2100 is VERY optimistic. Even so, the freeways around the bay would be mostly underwater, as would $2-3 Trillion in infrastructure and property. This is why it is time to dike and lock the Golden Gate. Sure, it would cost $15 billion, but it would permanently save all that infrastructure. The other side effect: no more water crisis in SoCal as all that now unneeded fresh water coming through the Delta would have to be diverted. Pays for itself. The Bay used to be an estuary until the Golden Gate developed. We'd just be restoring it!

]]>