Comments on: The Fort Peck Incident http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/ Challenging your thinking, pushing your imagination, creating the future Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:41:44 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Whitney http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-14988 Whitney Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:03:49 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-14988 Tom; Although I realize that the possibility of Fort Peck Dam to fail is a legitimate fear, I must agree to disagree with you. Retaining water is exactly what Fort Peck Dam is designed to do. Since I was a little kid, I've been told by my grandparents, school teachers, and family friends about the structure of the dam. The internal design of this 'dirt bump', as Thomas called it, is extremely sophisicated. The interior is designed to be at its strongest when there is water pressure behind it. This is accomplished through various means, one is the granite footing placed on the dry side to act as a solid base for the granite within the dam when there is strong water pressure on the water side. The numerous dams along the Missouri river were also not 'sold as great tools for flood control', they were & are primarily a means of creating electricity (for those that have an adjoining hydroelectric facility) and more importantly, creating a source of irrigation for the hundreds of thousands of farms located along the banks of the Missouri. What is happening this year has happened for hundreds of years.. and once again, although I feel for those affected by the flooding, most of the major flooding happening is occuring in towns and cities with poorly designed flood control systems. Montana and North Dakota have been getting a very bad reputation with all the news focusing on the problems caused by the release of large amounts of water... a bad reputation in a state that has such a small population destroys the tourism industry.. which is a sad thing. Although I appreciate you creativity, Tom, I don't appreciate the bad reputation created for my beautiful state. Tom; Although I realize that the possibility of Fort Peck Dam to fail is a legitimate fear, I must agree to disagree with you. Retaining water is exactly what Fort Peck Dam is designed to do. Since I was a little kid, I’ve been told by my grandparents, school teachers, and family friends about the structure of the dam. The internal design of this ‘dirt bump’, as Thomas called it, is extremely sophisicated. The interior is designed to be at its strongest when there is water pressure behind it. This is accomplished through various means, one is the granite footing placed on the dry side to act as a solid base for the granite within the dam when there is strong water pressure on the water side.

The numerous dams along the Missouri river were also not ’sold as great tools for flood control’, they were & are primarily a means of creating electricity (for those that have an adjoining hydroelectric facility) and more importantly, creating a source of irrigation for the hundreds of thousands of farms located along the banks of the Missouri.

What is happening this year has happened for hundreds of years.. and once again, although I feel for those affected by the flooding, most of the major flooding happening is occuring in towns and cities with poorly designed flood control systems.

Montana and North Dakota have been getting a very bad reputation with all the news focusing on the problems caused by the release of large amounts of water… a bad reputation in a state that has such a small population destroys the tourism industry.. which is a sad thing. Although I appreciate you creativity, Tom, I don’t appreciate the bad reputation created for my beautiful state.

]]> By: chuck http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13969 chuck Thu, 30 Jun 2011 21:35:37 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13969 Tom, part of that "failure" in terms of flood control should be laid directly at the feet of the Grebens who want nothing more than for the river to be "controlled" as if the dams weren't there. The CoE has their hands tied in terms of their goals.... Tom, part of that “failure” in terms of flood control should be laid directly at the feet of the Grebens who want nothing more than for the river to be “controlled” as if the dams weren’t there. The CoE has their hands tied in terms of their goals….

]]> By: Thomas Wells http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13874 Thomas Wells Tue, 28 Jun 2011 18:08:12 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13874 It is hardly comforting that a large area containing farm land, cities, industries, nuclear plants, nuclear missiles, oil refineries, chemical plants sewer and water facilities, transportation, electricity, etc. is "protected" from going into the gulf of Mexico by a few dirt bumps. It is hardly comforting that a large area containing farm land, cities, industries, nuclear plants, nuclear missiles, oil refineries, chemical plants sewer and water facilities, transportation, electricity, etc. is “protected” from going into the gulf of Mexico by a few dirt bumps.

]]> By: admin http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13846 admin Tue, 28 Jun 2011 05:25:34 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13846 Whitney, Thanks for putting it in perspective. I realize there are many, many layers of safety built into the design, and only the most extraordinary of circumstances could cause a failure. That said, the true failure is not in what it is designed to do, but in what it wasn't designed to do. And the people who currently live inside the flooded areas can attest to the limitations. If the dams, which were originally sold as great tools for flood control, failed on one account, I don't think its unreasonable for people to speculate on other limitations as well. Tom Whitney,

Thanks for putting it in perspective. I realize there are many, many layers of safety built into the design, and only the most extraordinary of circumstances could cause a failure.

That said, the true failure is not in what it is designed to do, but in what it wasn’t designed to do. And the people who currently live inside the flooded areas can attest to the limitations. If the dams, which were originally sold as great tools for flood control, failed on one account, I don’t think its unreasonable for people to speculate on other limitations as well.

Tom

]]> By: Whitney http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13819 Whitney Mon, 27 Jun 2011 18:19:22 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13819 I live in Glasgow, MT, which is 15 miles from Fort Peck. The fact that so many people are causing unnecessary panic referring to the fact that, to quote Ashlee earlier, ‘Fort Peck is a hydraulic dam and was not built to hold this amount of water’ is completely false. The fact is that Fort Peck Lake is currently (as of June 27, 2011) 14,788,340 acre-feet below capacity. Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota is the reservoir next in line, and it’s currently 18,102,545 acre-feet below capacity. If there were to be a breach of Fort Peck Dam, between the friction caused over the 200+ river miles between Fort Peck and Williston, ND and the fact that the Garrison Dam can contain an additional 3,314,205 acre-feet of water more than what Fort Peck Lake is currently holding, there would not be any issues in New Orleans, as Elvie suggested. The reasons why the Corps of Engineers did not release water from the spillway earlier are numerous, but here are a few: 1) the purpose of Fort Peck Lake is to create down pressure for the diversion tunnels which spin turbines within the Powerhouses; there is no suction. Therefore, the more water, the more water pressure, the faster the turbines spin, the more electricity is generated. (After the release of water in 1997, the amount of water left within the lake was not adequate to generate enough electricity to meet the Corps quotas. Because of this and the corresponding drought that lasted 10 years, the Corps is much more careful about the release of water from Fort Peck Lake.) 2) Montana is a large state with a small population. The release of water is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers, a government agency. During the nearly 20 years of drought suffered in Northeast Montana, water was continuously released from Fort Peck Lake through the diversion tunnels, further stressing the flood conditions. Montana currently has two Senators and one Representative, as compared to Nebraska’s two Senators and three Representatives and Missouri’s two Senators and nine Representatives; we don’t command enough votes to regularly make a difference in any governmental decisions to release or retain water in Fort Peck Lake. The fact of the matter is, although Fort Peck Lake is at record setting high levels, it’s far from being dangerous. What people need to understand is that Northeast Montana is a dry place! We had a long, cold and wet winter in 2010 and 2011 which caused record setting runoff. Record highs in a place that’s usually arid are not comparable to record highs in areas that command more than an average of 11” per year (which is Montana’s average rainfall). Currently, Glasgow (and the surrounding area) has had a total of 17.65” of precipitation since January, and we’re only halfway through the year! In conclusion, it’s been a wet year! Although I feel for those towns and cities affected by the flood waters (which includes Glasgow; we’ve had three straight months of severe flooding conditions here, too), the Corps of Engineers is not to blame, Mother Nature is! There is nothing to fear concerning Fort Peck Lake, dam or spillway. I live in Glasgow, MT, which is 15 miles from Fort Peck. The fact that so many people are causing unnecessary panic referring to the fact that, to quote Ashlee earlier, ‘Fort Peck is a hydraulic dam and was not built to hold this amount of water’ is completely false. The fact is that Fort Peck Lake is currently (as of June 27, 2011) 14,788,340 acre-feet below capacity. Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota is the reservoir next in line, and it’s currently 18,102,545 acre-feet below capacity. If there were to be a breach of Fort Peck Dam, between the friction caused over the 200+ river miles between Fort Peck and Williston, ND and the fact that the Garrison Dam can contain an additional 3,314,205 acre-feet of water more than what Fort Peck Lake is currently holding, there would not be any issues in New Orleans, as Elvie suggested.

The reasons why the Corps of Engineers did not release water from the spillway earlier are numerous, but here are a few: 1) the purpose of Fort Peck Lake is to create down pressure for the diversion tunnels which spin turbines within the Powerhouses; there is no suction. Therefore, the more water, the more water pressure, the faster the turbines spin, the more electricity is generated. (After the release of water in 1997, the amount of water left within the lake was not adequate to generate enough electricity to meet the Corps quotas. Because of this and the corresponding drought that lasted 10 years, the Corps is much more careful about the release of water from Fort Peck Lake.) 2) Montana is a large state with a small population. The release of water is controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers, a government agency. During the nearly 20 years of drought suffered in Northeast Montana, water was continuously released from Fort Peck Lake through the diversion tunnels, further stressing the flood conditions. Montana currently has two Senators and one Representative, as compared to Nebraska’s two Senators and three Representatives and Missouri’s two Senators and nine Representatives; we don’t command enough votes to regularly make a difference in any governmental decisions to release or retain water in Fort Peck Lake.

The fact of the matter is, although Fort Peck Lake is at record setting high levels, it’s far from being dangerous. What people need to understand is that Northeast Montana is a dry place! We had a long, cold and wet winter in 2010 and 2011 which caused record setting runoff. Record highs in a place that’s usually arid are not comparable to record highs in areas that command more than an average of 11” per year (which is Montana’s average rainfall). Currently, Glasgow (and the surrounding area) has had a total of 17.65” of precipitation since January, and we’re only halfway through the year!

In conclusion, it’s been a wet year! Although I feel for those towns and cities affected by the flood waters (which includes Glasgow; we’ve had three straight months of severe flooding conditions here, too), the Corps of Engineers is not to blame, Mother Nature is! There is nothing to fear concerning Fort Peck Lake, dam or spillway.

]]> By: Midwestkid http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13468 Midwestkid Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:49:25 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13468 the threat of all this is very real, especially given the situation on the missouri river at this time, I do have one point to argue here tho, if for any reason the fort peck dam should fail there would be absolutely no chance that any dam down river will be able to contain the rush of water and the destruction listed here is nothing compared to what our real life scenario will be like, so let everyone be aware we need to pray that this never ever happens the threat of all this is very real, especially given the situation on the missouri river at this time, I do have one point to argue here tho, if for any reason the fort peck dam should fail there would be absolutely no chance that any dam down river will be able to contain the rush of water and the destruction listed here is nothing compared to what our real life scenario will be like, so let everyone be aware we need to pray that this never ever happens

]]> By: Steve http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13464 Steve Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:13:04 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13464 Would someone please kindly remind the Corp of Engineers that no one thought a plane could take down a Trade Center tower? No one thought an ice berg could take down the Titanic. Thank you. Would someone please kindly remind the Corp of Engineers that no one thought a plane could take down a Trade Center tower? No one thought an ice berg could take down the Titanic. Thank you.

]]> By: Jerry http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13336 Jerry Fri, 17 Jun 2011 14:54:58 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13336 Ashlee---I live in Bismarck too. It seems the only escape route would be towards Rugby. NE of Bis. Your Thoughts? Ashlee—I live in Bismarck too. It seems the only escape route would be towards Rugby. NE of Bis. Your Thoughts?

]]> By: admin http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13273 admin Thu, 16 Jun 2011 06:17:49 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13273 Diane, I share your concerns. I have many friends and family members also in harms way. The safest direction to head in case of a disaster is away from the river and towards higher ground. I wish you the best, Tom Diane,

I share your concerns. I have many friends and family members also in harms way. The safest direction to head in case of a disaster is away from the river and towards higher ground.

I wish you the best,

Tom

]]> By: Diane http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/comment-page-1/#comment-13266 Diane Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:32:02 +0000 http://www.futuristspeaker.com/2008/07/the-fort-peck-incident/#comment-13266 We live in Logan, IA and near by areas are being flooded, our interstate system is gone from Missouri Valley to CB and Omaha. The Corps are letting massive amounts out these Dams all six of them and it is terrifying. The possibility of one of them failing would be disastrous! We sit here wondering if it did happan how long would we have to escape? Where would be the safest place to head to? We figure North east. Any ideas? We live in Logan, IA and near by areas are being flooded, our interstate system is gone from Missouri Valley to CB and Omaha. The Corps are letting massive amounts out these Dams all six of them and it is terrifying. The possibility of one of them failing would be disastrous!

We sit here wondering if it did happan how long would we have to escape? Where would be the safest place to head to? We figure North east. Any ideas?

]]>