News


Searsville Dam will stay for now; threatened fish to get more water

Stanford University identifies two ways to send water through, or around, the dam

Stanford University released a 41-page report Friday, May 1, outlining two plans to allow water to get around, or through, Searsville Dam, providing passage for threatened steelhead trout.

The university would either create an opening at the base of the 123-year-old dam to allow the creek to flow through and provide the fish passage to upstream creeks; or it would allow the dam to fill completely with sediment, and Stanford would develop wetlands and a new stream channel through the sediment to allow water and passage upstream, according to the report.

The Searsville Alternatives Study Steering Committee Recommendations is the culmination of four years of work by 12 university administrators and faculty, including specialists in conservation, land use, environmental sustainability and water conservation. It received input from an advisory group that included representatives from the cities of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, environmental advocates and neighborhood groups.

While the steering committee identified the two alternatives, it and the advisory committee looked at eight options, including doing nothing and taking the dam down. Some groups and persons on the advisory committee continue to recommend and support removal, including dismantling the structure in stages.

The two alternatives the steering committee identified would allow the dam to stay in place for now. Stanford could study the feasibility of removing the aging structure in the future. A key consideration in either proposed alternative will be what to do with the approximately 2.7 million cubic yards of sediment that have accumulated in 120-plus years of the dam's existence. The environmental impacts of downstream flooding and releasing part or all of the sediment downstream, or even hauling it all away, must be carefully considered, the report noted.

The first alternative, which the university prefers, would remove much of the sediment through sluicing and flushing and stabilization of the coarse accumulated sediment. This alternative assumes that downstream conditions would need to adapt to the increased sediment that will no longer be trapped behind the dam once an opening has been constructed.

The opening would be at grade with the creek. Fish would be able to pass through the opening, connecting Corte Madera Creek below the dam to a riparian channel leading to the upper creek. Leaving the dam in place establishes a "check dam" the would moderate the rush of water downstream from runoff during large storms. Some of the upstream wetlands might be preserved by having cutoff seepage walls.

Resource agencies and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority would have to coordinate with Stanford to address the constriction downstream of the creek channel to protect against flooding in large storms, according to the report.

Searsville Lake is currently 90 percent silted in, and the second alternative would keep the dam in place without puncturing it, letting the lake fill in. A new creek channel, cut through the sediment, would move the water to both ends of Corte Madera Creek above and below the dam. The dam might also be lowered or notched to relieve flooding. A fish ladder would also be use by fish getting from one part of the creek to another.

These preferences do not preclude someday removing the dam, said Jean McCown, director of community relations. But the university wants to be careful about the impacts of the release of sediment and of flooding.

The alternatives would also allow the university to continue to use water from the creeks.

"The original purpose of the Dam and Reservoir was for water supply, and Searsville has been and continues to be an important source of water supply for the University," according to steering committee report.

"This recommendation creates a new point of diversion downstream and shifts water storage from Searsville to Felt Reservoir. Water diversions currently made at Searsville would most likely be moved to the existing San Francisquito Creek Pump Station, approximately 4 1/2 miles downstream from Searsville Dam," the report reads.

Diverted water would be stored at an expanded Felt Reservoir in order to meet the existing seasonal water needs of the university.

"The recommendation regarding water diversion and storage is intended to preserve Stanford's rights to creek water diversion and storage considering the effects of climate change, population growth, and drought on the region's water sources," the committee wrote.

The alternatives could cost in excess of $100 million. The university does not expect to carry that entire burden.

"Finding ways to address the financial responsibilities will be one of the top priorities," the steering committee wrote.

But not everyone agrees with the steering committee's choices.

Two key organizations still say removing the dam is the only acceptable action.

"Poking a hole in an unneeded dam or letting it fill in with sediment are not viable solutions. These are ineffective Band-Aids that are unlikely to secure permits or attract funding support," said Matt Stoeker, a biologist for Beyond Searsville Dam and a member of the advisory committee. "The troubling thing is that recent studies have shown that dam removal, combined with identified off-stream floodwater detention ponds, can provide the greatest ecosystem benefit while also achieving elevated flood protection that is in line with their preferred orifice alternative."

In his advisory group recommendations, Stoeker wrote that removing the dam and all accumulated sediment and creating a creek valley habitat or removing the dam and some accumulated sediment, stabilizing the remaining sediment and creating a middle lake for Stanford's water use are the only possibilities.

The other alternatives would create lethal water conditions in the reservoir for organisms, including the steelhead trout, and would cause the spread of exotic species downstream, among other problems.

The new bypass channel in the second alternative would require massive earth moving and habitat disruption at Jasper Ridge, and oversight and maintenance would not be feasible.

"We see no possible way to operate such a massive and long channel with existing water constraints and no feasible way to prevent downstream reservoir entrapment and death of steelhead. (And) there are major additional fish passage problems exacerbated by reservoir level fluctuations associated with operating a notched dam for flood protection," Stoeker wrote.

A recent National Marine Fisheries Service Jeopardy Decision against Santa Barbara County indicated numerous legal problems with orifice dams related to the Endangered Species Act, he noted.

In comments on the study after its release, American Rivers, another group on the advisory committee, and Beyond Searsville Dam said jointly in a statement the university's announcement will only delay a final decision regarding the dam's fate.

"American Rivers appreciates that Stanford has abandoned the idea that Searsville is useful for supplying water for their golf course and landscaping, particularly in this drought," said Steve Rothert, California director of American Rivers. "However, we are concerned that operating a dam with a hole in it will be more troublesome than they expect, with impacts to fish passage and sediment accumulation causing ongoing problems."

Stanford is currently being sued by Our Children's Earth and The Ecological Rights Foundation over Searsville.

The groups are also suing the National Marine Fisheries Service, alleging it inadequately analyzed how the dam, reservoir and booster pumps add to and exacerbate adverse impacts on the threatened species when it approved water diversion in 2008.

VIDEO: Stanford University video announcing two concepts for Searsville Dam

Related article: Stanford officials look to solve Searsville dilemma (January 2013)

Comments

2 people like this
Posted by sounds OK
a resident of College Terrace
on May 1, 2015 at 2:35 pm

Sounds like a reasonable, conservative approach IMO.


Like this comment
Posted by Mr.Recycle
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on May 1, 2015 at 4:41 pm

I agree, this is a good solution that only real extremists wouldn't be satisfied with.


Like this comment
Posted by Ana Dromous
a resident of Mountain View
on May 1, 2015 at 5:12 pm

I agree. Seems like a good plan that will end up with the fish getting through and also minimize a huge amount of sediment filling the downstream channel for the next decade(s)


2 people like this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 1, 2015 at 8:25 pm

You will note that the Hansen Cement Plant, Stevens Creek Road in Cupertino has paid a settlement for releasing harmful chemicals into the Permanente Creek - SJM 04/29/15. Those chemicals are not the end result of the production of cement as much as being a natural component of the limestone type rock in that area of the coast range. That includes selenium, mercury, and chromium - chemicals which are released by the transition of water through the rock.

Since SU is in the same type rock formation it would seem that those chemical components would also be evident at Searsville which had mining activities and lumber activities - churning of earth. I think that there should be some evaluation as to the chemical content of the silt at the bottom of the dam to see if poking a hole in the bottom of the dam would release some silt which is chemically undesirable for transition downstream.


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 1, 2015 at 8:50 pm

After viewing the video, Jean McCown describes option 2; adaptive management which is basically trial and error. Lets hope that this does not have negative results downstream.


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 1, 2015 at 9:30 pm

Key concerns
"The key question is whether – and how – the sediment can be moved downstream," McCown said. "The Steering Committee concluded that mechanical dredging, drying and hauling the sediment to disposal sites would create considerable environmental disturbances for our neighbors and at Jasper Ridge. We estimate that removing the sediment through dredging would take nine or 10 years and encompass some 150,000 truck trips."

McCown added, "The possibility of releasing the sediment downstream, which has been done in other projects, presents a unique challenge that we must continue studying to ensure that we do the right thing, especially for the communities located downstream of the dam.


1 person likes this
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 1, 2015 at 11:26 pm

I question why the silt has to be hauled to disposal sites. Why can't they start the skimming process and distribute the silt over the hills - look at the area next to 280 - that all will have to be turned as it gets hotter for fire protection requirements. Why not put the silt on the hills as a soil enhancer. That can be continual process over the extent of the campus.

As the temperature gets hotter Foothill Park could use some silt as well as Arastadero Preserve.

This continual insistence about hauling the silt to some disposal site is an artificial barrier to resolving the issue - it is like some excuse for doing nothing.


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 2, 2015 at 7:10 am

@ Resident 1

2.7 million cubic yards is a lot of silt. This would cost a lot of money. It is cheaper to flush it downstream. Let us hope this does not contribute to flooding in future years. Adaptive Management. Aye Caramba!!!!!


Like this comment
Posted by Neal
a resident of Community Center
on May 2, 2015 at 7:16 am

Does anyone know how earthquake safe this dam is? Mother nature may help solve this problem soon.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 2, 2015 at 8:54 am

Gee Neighbor - you have now transitioned the silt management problem to the downstream cities where the major population lives. Dumping the silt in the bay via the creek is a major slight of hand - can we assume that our favorite developers now have created the next landfill situation in which the extension of the major developments next door - cities north and south - can now be extended out to our bay? Just imagine - since dredging is now illegal you have created the perfect domino effect to extend the airport and add more buildings. Maybe the next police station will end up out there.

You can take a lesson from the current fight up in Mission Bay - SF over the Warriors development plan - now everyone - UCSF, etc. - wants to create more development in that area. But what we learned in the paper today is that you cannot get permissions and financing if a law suit is in progress.
So you have a number of domino effects in process all over the bay with major universities and cities maneuvering for more land and territory.

We also can see in the SJM today that the city of Mountain View is challenging the current propositions from our favorite developers to curtail some of the planned building in the MV north east quadrant. Gee - that is right across the San Antonio street city line. How convenient that we add some silt and landfill - who could have thought that up?

The simple and most obvious plan is to lift the silt off in layers and redistribute over the open land which will be rototilled as it gets hotter - if you won't do the obvious and least harmful to the downstream population and land then that tells you that another game plan is in play.

Good chess players can always see what the next plays are to win the game.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 2, 2015 at 9:09 am

Gee - forgot to mention that UCSF does not pay taxes for the land they have / are developing in the Mission District in SF. The SF Mayor is now looking at the predicament / situation in which the Warriors would pay taxes while UCSF does / will not.

That is a cautionary tale as to any further development in the City of PA - who is paying taxes and who is not. Since city services are now passing on higher costs to the residents and businesses who is getting a free ride on payment for city services and property tax which helps the school system.
Those are all domino effects that need to be taken into consideration - city services for clean-up of silt? Added buildings on landfill? Who is paying for this?


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on May 2, 2015 at 2:59 pm

"We estimate that removing the sediment through dredging would take nine or 10 years and encompass some 150,000 truck trips."

2.7 million cubic yards divided by 12 cubic yards per end dump= 225,000 truck loads.

It is much cheaper to flush the sediment downstream.


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 2, 2015 at 3:08 pm

The link does not seem to work for the 41 page document.Where can we find it?


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 2, 2015 at 4:39 pm

You all seem so resistant to the idea of skimming off the silt in a gradual manner. We have been in a drought for four years - it is not as if there is a mountain of silt streaming down into the lake.

Repeating the amount of silt and number of truckloads is just a move to cut off any attempt to start action on this - there is no rain so now is the time to get moving.

Let's be clear here -it is cheaper to SU to flush it down the creek. It is not cheaper to the cities at the bottom of the creek who have to deal with it. So Neighbor who lives in Old Palo Alto probably wants to build something at the bottom. Some people will benefit by this action - but all residents will pay to resolve it.

And when it starts to rain again - if ever - the choked up creek will over flow into Neighbors area. Note SU will not be affected.

I am sure the EPA will get involved - as they did in the Hansen Cement activity - same type rock - same type chemicals. We know who to send them off to visit.


Like this comment
Posted by Slow Down
a resident of Community Center
on May 2, 2015 at 4:47 pm

Slow Down is a registered user.

@resident - One of the main complaints about the dam is that it doesn't allow silt to flow down the creek. This solves that, and does it in a way you suggest, a little bit at a time. So the creek won't get "choked up".


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 2, 2015 at 5:25 pm

@ Resident 1

As you can see, The Searsville Alternatives Study Steering Committee is comprised of people associated with Stanford. Stanford pays there bills. So of course they will recommend the cheapest alternative for Stanford, to the detriment of the people downstream.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 2, 2015 at 7:49 pm

No one is answering the question of what happens when the silt comes down stream and hits the bay. There is no way that the silt can be removed from the front of the PA waterfront - such as it is. It will just build up - and when a king tide rolls in it will be pushed back up the channel. This is a total screw-up.

You cannot legally dredge soil any more that is questionable as to content - and this will be. That is why you no longer have a yacht harbor in PA.

You can check the SJM today - "Google's plan faces city's ax". It shows the developers and contractors who's plans are in the running - and those that have been disqualified - or partially disqualified. You can read it your self - Peery Arrillaga is not in compliance with the proposed site on Charleston Rd next to San Antonio Rd in Mountain View.

Those planned facilities can be moved over a couple of blocks to the PA waterfront - such as it is.

You all can talk about truckloads of silt - you are trying to make that the bottom line - but that is not the bottom line here - what happens when it collects at the bottom of the creek as it goes into the bay.
You all cannot talk to that end result which has no other options.

So get to the BOTTOM LINE for PA, East PA, Menlo Park, and other affected areas. That is what you - the resident is paying for in your property insurance / flood insurance. And that is what the city is paying for to clean up the end result of this fiasco which will come back to you in your utilities bill.

This whole activity is a self serving exercise - SU has it's own bottom line, PA has no bottom line - and you all talk about how many truckloads it takes to move silt - that is your bottom line.


Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 2, 2015 at 7:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

What happened to all the posters who claimed that the silt was not going to be a problem???


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 3, 2015 at 7:29 am

Was their not a vote a few years back For a vote for a 5 billion dollar expansion project at Stanford? And now they are crying poor. Typical.


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 3, 2015 at 7:44 am

@ Slow Down

So, if you think 2.7 million cubic yards of silt being flushed from Searsville will not affect people downstream, you are seriously mistaken. Adaptive Management, what a joke. Just another case of over educated, under intelligent.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 3, 2015 at 10:26 am

Note - SFC 05/03 - UCSF expansion plans drive arena opposition" - Matier & Ross. This is like a text book class on land use. UCSF wants the property - Mission Bay but would not pay taxes on it. The Warriors would pay taxes. And there are other parties that want to build there - just buy the land now, do nothing - and 'bank it".

We are assuming that the silt has no value - but SU appears to be banking it. This discussion has been going on forever with no action on their part to resolve it. That is their "bank" of valuable building material.

I stumbled upon the Stanford Hospital Patient Finance Center which is in the Baylands off Embarcadero - you can see the umbrellas for the valet parking - that place is filled with cars during the week. SU could be working on their expansion of services in this area which will require more land and some flood control support - raised buildings. There may be a number of scenarios in play which are not being discussed but assume that the silt does have value as a fill in component of building up the baylands for further expansion.

Their favorite developer has plans for buildings that need a new home - rejected by Mountain View. I suspect there is a lot to this story that we do not see at this point.

Info on truckloads - probably inflated to create more importance - would go into the "Work in Process" segment of the Income Statement - it does have value but is not the "bottom line".

So now we can start looking at who is paying taxes - who isn't on "valuable" bayfront property. Any projected development - who is / isn't paying taxes on it.

Flood Control appears to be operating on some different thought process. And the fish would not like the silt coming down the creek.


9 people like this
Posted by Tom Rindfleisch
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 4, 2015 at 12:52 pm

Matt Stoeker is quoted as saying in Ms. Dremann's article, "The troubling thing is that recent studies have shown that dam removal, combined with identified off-stream floodwater detention ponds, can provide the greatest ecosystem benefit while also achieving elevated flood protection that is in line with their preferred orifice alternative."

I have served on Stanford's external, 25-member Searsville Advisory Group for the past 4 years (as has Mr. Stoeker) and his statement illustrates his fixation on dam removal as the only alternative he approves of and the exaggerations he is willing to make to argue that case. The analyses show significant ecosystem benefits for both the dam orifice approach (that Stanford prefers) and the option for recreating a confluence valley (dam removal). These are NOT equivalent in terms of downstream flood management however, nor in terms of reversibility should unforeseen negative consequences be encountered along the way (once the dam is removed, you cannot undo that).

In terms of flood management, recall that in 1998 a 45-year flood hit San Francisquito Creek -- a 7,200 cubic feet per second peak flow that spilled about 500 acre-feet of water into Crescent Park at the Pope-Chaucer bridge and caused some $28M in damage. The Stanford preferred approach to Searsville, combined with the "modified flood control plan" being pursued by the SFC Joint Powers Authority and Santa Clara Valley Water District (from Middlefield bridge to the bay) would come close to removing ALL flooding danger for the creek up to a 100-year flow (9,400 cfs). Calculations show that about 10 acre-feet of water would still exit the creek around Middlefield Road under a 100-year flow.

This is in contrast to about 280 acre-feet (almost 60% of the disastrous 1998 flow) that would overflow at Middlefield Road if the dam were removed and an offsteam detention facility constructed (with difficult engineering challenges) at the Old Boething site.

I believe Stanford has conducted a rigorous, objective, multi-year, professional study of alternatives and has chosen an approach that seeks to maximize benefits to the ecosystem, amelioration of downstream flooding risks, and preservation of its research programs at Jasper Ridge.

Tom R.


4 people like this
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 4, 2015 at 12:59 pm

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Thank you Tom for adding facts, clarity and sanity to this discussion.


Like this comment
Posted by Jim Wiley
a resident of Menlo Park
on May 4, 2015 at 2:57 pm

I agree with Peter Carpenter in thanking Tom Rindfleisch for "adding facts, clarity and sanity to this discussion." One question: is the "Old Boething" potential flood water diversion site another name for the "Webb Ranch" site?


Like this comment
Posted by Jim Wiley
a resident of Menlo Park
on May 4, 2015 at 3:00 pm

Tom was correct in calling it a "offsteam detention facility" not what I wrote, a "water diversion site"


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 4, 2015 at 6:27 pm

@ Jim wiley

Webb Ranch is a horse ranch in Portola Valley it is located the west side of Portola rd, near 280. Boething is on the east side of Portola rd. It is also called TREE LAND it is a huge wholesale nursery. It is also located below Felt Lake.


Like this comment
Posted by Neighbor
a resident of East Palo Alto
on May 4, 2015 at 6:39 pm

The part about poking a hole in the bottom of the dam makes sense in order to control the flow of water. On the other hand, how will the silt be controlled, so it does not clog things up downstream?

Does someone have web link for the 41 page report?The Hyperlink does not seam to work for the above article.


Like this comment
Posted by Tom Rindfleisch
a resident of Crescent Park
on May 4, 2015 at 6:47 pm

You can find the full "Searsville Alternatives Study -- Steering Committee Recommendations" report at Web Link.

Tom R.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 4, 2015 at 7:21 pm

So when does SU start the process of putting a hole in the bottom of the dam so it can start draining?

Facts, clarity and sanity will not help this situation unless SU proceeds with the recommended procedure during this drought period so that the dam is relieved VS waiting for a large storm - if one ever comes. SU should be taking action now to reduce the outside risk during this drought season.

We are still seeing a lot of talk but no actual action. It is irrelevant as to the number of outside options and opinions if no action takes place.


Like this comment
Posted by Jim Wiley
a resident of Menlo Park
on May 5, 2015 at 7:50 am

I now understand that the "Old Boething" site is the historic location of the Boething Treeland Nursery, Not the current location of the a location Boething Treeland Farms. The location is South of SLAC and North of the San Francisquito Creek in a location similar to what the San Francisquito Creek JPA has referred to as both "alternative 1" or "Ansel Lane." The location on Google Maps is at Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 5, 2015 at 8:00 am

Please note that the City of Palo Alto is directly affected by any action regarding the Creek. The City of Palo Alto is directly next to the creek starting at El Camino Blvd. as it winds down to the bay next to the recreation center - baseball, golf course, and airport.

If you look at a map you will note that the creek takes a number of twists and turn from the top to bottom. The assumption that the silt will make it to the bottom of the bay could be interrupted by sticking points at curves which would cause a build up of silt throughout the transition points. Also note that there is a lot of tree growth throughout the creek and broken tree parts which will create a "beaver dam" affect at sticking points - notably the bridges.

The question on the table is did a representative of the City of Palo Alto Public Works attend any of these meetings? I am talking about a city employee who is directly responsible for any actions on the creek that affect the city in total. It is unclear what Tom R's direct responsibility is regarding this issue.

There needs to be a city legal point of contact that is working with the city Public Works to evaluate the viability of any downward results of activity initiated by SU at the top of the creek.

Please respond as to the city's involvement in this forward planning. Atherton residents need to assess their own liability in this issue which will not be comparable since they are not directly aligned with the creek.

Suggest that the City of Menlo Park evaluate their participation since they are involved in the alignment of the creek - as is the City of East Palo Alto. Their legal staff should be directly involved in the evaluation of this situation.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 5, 2015 at 10:09 am

Note that this study took four years - the number of years of the drought. There has been previous studies which also balanced the options available.

Consider this a stake in the ground for a comprehensive action to proceed. If you all are waiting for a grand weather event to take everyone off the hook and let FEMA bear the cost then think again. The period of the drought provides the least risk with which to proceed and moderate any situations which move out of control of everyone involved.







Like this comment
Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton
on May 5, 2015 at 10:59 am

Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

"Suggest that the City of Menlo Park evaluate their participation since they are involved in the alignment of the creek - as is the City of East Palo Alto. "

There is a San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority to which the cities of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto, the County of San Mateo, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District belong.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 5, 2015 at 1:43 pm

Each city in the JPA and SCWD has a different level of involvement in the end results of a climatic disaster. This problem under discussion has been studied, re-studied, and re-studied over and over. If anyone in the JPA would like to initiate some action to resolution that would be great.
The problem is that there is a lot of talk but no action.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 6, 2015 at 6:24 am

Tom R - who is the City of Palo Alto point of contact in the Public Works Department and City Management who attended these meetings and has the authority to negotiate for the city?

Who is the PACC member that is heading up any city actions regarding this activity?

Is the legal department of the city involved with the decisions regarding any outcomes regarding this action - or lack of action?

Note that Commissioners serve the city as unpaid facilitators but have no legal status regarding land use. Land use, such as it is, has very costly impacts on the city management and resident personal management of their properties.


Like this comment
Posted by resident 1
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on May 6, 2015 at 8:22 am

I will remind you all the city now owns the PAO. It is an enterprise business recording profit and loss to gauge success of the effort. There is a whole field of airplanes sitting directly next to the outflow for the creek. I was there at 4:30 Pm and noted that the outflow on the airport side of the road at the end of the bay was full to the brim - north side, while the holding area on south side was nearly empty.

How water is managed in this specific area is subject to tide action, as well as city action to manage how water is distributed between the north and south side of the bayland estuary.

This picture is confusing enough without actions by outside sources concerning water management and flow. Any situation which would put the airport planes at risk should be subject to legal review.


Like this comment
Posted by Water Board
a resident of another community
on May 6, 2015 at 10:36 pm

Bump

Hello? Mat Stoeker?


Like this comment
Posted by Water Board
a resident of another community
on May 6, 2015 at 10:45 pm

Hi Matt, we are waiting for you rebuttal.

@ Pete

"Adding facts, clarity and sanity to this discussion."

Obviously, the J.P.A. , does not have much authority in this situation.



Like this comment
Posted by Water Board
a resident of another community
on May 6, 2015 at 10:48 pm

your rebuttal.


Like this comment
Posted by Water Board
a resident of another community
on May 6, 2015 at 10:54 pm

Good Luck!!!!


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Camper opens for lunch in Menlo Park
By Elena Kadvany | 12 comments | 3,915 views

Gobbledygook goings on in Palo Alto
By Diana Diamond | 1 comment | 1,440 views

Couples: Child Loss, "No U-Turn at Mercy Street"
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 913 views