The finding that the State's sediment models showed no real successful design is not surprising. What is surprising is that Gardner-Brown from the Consultant Team for the State says that this won't be a problem since the "failed model test" represents the "reasonable worst case for sediment control" (previous State studies said 6 feet of sediment build up in the Port's Turning Basin will occur every 6 to 10 years without the dam in place)
The article also quotes the State DES saying that the State will be required to fund the $271 million construction project. (how do they commit future legislatures to multimillion dollar funding by the end of this year?) Many stories, few reliable answers to complex questions. Who pays the piper? Who is checking or validating the science and monitoring before and after benefits?
The Port's Cleanup project now underway is estimated to cost from $150 to $200 million and must be completed before the State's Estuary project can proceed. This project will provide real value to the community. The dam removal, not so much. Earlier State EIS Consultant Cost Estimates were much higher, and they did not include answers to the DES created frenzy about the New Zealand Mud Snail, the Port's $200 million Clean Up project, or the annual sediment management/dredge costs (paid for by whom).
Oh yes. don't forget they are required to have a firm MOU from our City Council and other "Stakeholders" on who is paying what by the end of this year---and they need more money now from the legislature (or the Governor) to even advance the design so they can develop reliable cost estimates to ask the Legislature and the City Council for specific amounts to include in the 2024 MOU. Stay tuned for more interesting answers to the above.
Please explain the inappropriate content below.
