Setting the Record Straight!

From: jim davis
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 2:04 PM
Subject: Setting the record straight

  Mr. Rupert: I have just read your pathetic attempt to discredit real facts that were finally brought to light by the Delaware Riverside Conservancy.
 
 Statement#1 The three floods that took place along the main stem Delaware River between sept.2004 and June 2006 were man made and not the result of 100 year events or the perfect storm. 
 
 Your reply to this statement that the NWS has repeatedly said excessive rainfall/runoff was the primary cause of all three floods .No shit ! The ONLY cause of any flood (barring a  reservoir collapse or some similar disaster)is rainfall/runoff.No rainfall no runoff NO FLOOD.The difference in a natural and man made flood is what was not done by MAN(the DRBC) the reservoirs mismanaged by the DRBC did not provide EFFECTIVE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION,as provided for in the 1961 compact,by allowing the reservoirs to be over 100% full and spilling and thus not able to contain any of the runoff from the area above them allowing Approximately 100 billion gallons of water to be spilled and or released in already swollen river.That sir is a"" real fact"" that cannot be disputed with misdirection ,misstatements and irrelevant statistics.Regarding the 100 year flood statement ,BLAH! BLAH! BLAH! everyone who has been flooded knows that a 100 year flood can happen at anytime and it is only a 1 in 100 chance it  will happen during any year.Whats the chance of a 100 year flood happening 3 times in two years?Common sense would suggest that maybe just maybe something else might be a factor .Check the above statement for answers.
 
  Statement #2 The DRBC has the ability to direct water from the reservoirs to the Hudson river basin.
 
 your reply to this statement is a cop out at the very least.Does the DRBC have the ability, either independently or not,to divert water from the reservoirs to the Hudson river basin? The answer is either YES or NO and the answer is YES.The DRBC has the authority and is mandated to  make recommendations to better manage the reservoirs which when voted on,by the decreed parties, would than enable the DRBC to divert water during an emergency.Apparently,if you are to be believed, the DRBC has not done that and therefore cannot INDEPENDENTLY divert water to the Hudson river basin during an emergency and if that is true , as you seem to imply that it is ,than I must agree with you that the DRBC is mismanaging the reservoirs.
 
 Statement #3 The NYC-Delaware River Basin reservoirs have to be at or above 100 percent capacity.That is a misstatement,AGAIN, by you.
 The REAL statement#3 The NYC-Delaware River Basin reservoirs HAVE BEEN KEPT AT OR ABOVE 100% CAPACITY.That sir is a fact and  
  They are kept at 100% capacity and spilling  when and if you can keep them there.
 
 Statement #4The DRBC is profiting from the sale of the water stored in the reservoirs.That is a misstatement ,AGAIN, by you.
 The REAL statement #4 The DRBC is selling the water stored in the reservoirs .
 
 Your reply to this statement That the" DRBC DOES HAVE A WATER SUPPLY CHARGE PROGRAM" speaks for itself.Either the DRBC sells water or it doesn`t sell water the answer would be either yes or no and the answer is YES.Call it what ever you want but you give them water and they pay you for it  that is ,by most accounts ,selling water. 
 
 Statement #5 The DRBC released billions of gallons of water from the NYC-Delaware Basin reservoirs during the 2004,2005 and 2006 floods 
 into a river that was already swollen.
 The REAL Statement #5 The DRBC RELEASED and SPILLED  BILLIONS of  gallons of water from the NYC-Delaware Basin reservoirs during the 2004,2005and 2006 floods into an already swollen river. 
 
 Your reply  that the statement is misleading because it fails to recognize the important distinction between involuntary,uncontrolled spills which take place when reservoirs have reached 100 percent capacity and water that is directed through release works by human action is in itself  misleading.The rest of your reply is irrelevant.  The DRBC has failed to recognize that they have been mandated to manage the reservoirs and to provide" EFFECTIVE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION".IF the reservoirs were managed in any  true sense of  the word there would not have been UNCONTROLLED spills totaling approximately 100 BILLION gallon (during the 2006 flood)or any other time of possible flooding .Using your example if you were filling your bathtub with water would you allow a little room for when you got in it or would you just fill it to the top and than stupidly get into it and expect it to not run over?The NYC reservoirs are no different if you keep them at or over 100% capacity and than not expect them to add to the flood crest during a heavy rainfall is just plain --- well you know DUMB; not to mentionPOOR MANAGEMENT.
 
 Statement #6 The DRBC has stated that every time there is heavy rainfall ,the flood plains will flood.
 
 Your reply to this statement is ."Flood plains do flood but not in every storm.The DRBC staff never said that floodplains flood during every heavy rainfall storm."Your reply is a matter of semantics and was taken out of context.The facts remain very clear the Delaware River flooded after a heavy rainfall in  Sept.2004 ,April 2005 and June 2006 When the  ALL THREE reservoirs were at or above 100% capacity BUT it did not flood during Oct.2005  when the rainfall amount was as high as any other flood month and the only difference was the reservoirs were below 80%.That  is a fact and all the irrelevant statistics mentioned before the 1961 compact  will not change the facts.YOU CAN FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME AND SOME OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME BUT YOU CAN`T FOOL THE DELAWARE RIVERSIDE CONSERVANCY ANYTIME.   
 
 
 Ongoing Flood Loss Reduction Efforts Relating To Reservoirs
 
   The DRBC statement that "Historic data indicate that major flooding on the main stem Delaware River occurred before  NYC reservoirs were built or in the absence of spills after they were put into service." is another case of the DRBC making a misleading statement.FIRST what happened before the existence of the reservoirs should not matter they are there NOW and the DRBC is mandated to provide EFFECTIVE FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION.Second Major flooding has NOT occurred in the absence of spills.That is an outright lie.

  I do not know why and find it hard to believe that the DRBC is not willing to stop the death and destruction downstream with something as simple as reducing the reservoirs especially in light of the Delaware Riverside Conservancy`s Hydrologists report stating that the reservoirs could have reduced the flood crest during the 2006 event by AT LEAST 6 FEET with the proper voids in the reservoirs.
 
  The age of information is upon us; anything that happens anywhere on the planet is on the internet.The time has come and gone where anything a government entity says is automatically and totally believed.It might be time for the DRBC to stop the misinformation campaign and put all that effort in  working toward real flood damage reduction.Reducing the reservoirs to 80 percent ,while not a total cure for all flooding, it certainly is a good place to start.        
                                         
                        
Jim Davis