Edenville Dam collapse Michigan

[Climber]

Governments have been known to do the same. Magalia Reservoir has been dropped permanently about 25 ft since 1996 due to its need for seismic retrofitting and nobody wanting to pay for it.

A group of people brought to the attention of the federal energy regulatory commission in 2005 concerns over the emergency spillway at Oroville Dam. The fix was supposed to be $100M which was ruled unnecessary and too costly. That eventually led to the poor outcome from the crisis there in 2017 which has cost over $1B in repairs.

Yes, a poor example, governments have been choosing to kick the can down the road on many infrastructure projects, and there are going to be major ramifications in many places, eventually. I think that it's like musical chairs, they just figure that somebody else won't have a seat when the music stops.

As to government decisions vs corporate decisions, ones made for budgetary issues, the other is made for profit margins. And all too often, the ones deciding on profit margins stick the public with bailing them out when things go south, after years of pocketing the profits.

 

[ejv]

A matter of priorities. Governments don't want to spend on what they don't want to spend on. That money most often gets used but on something else. CA ultimately got most of the cost of repair for the Oroville fiasco paid for by the federal govt. I still see it as a govt bail out.

PG&E messes up we pay. CA messes up we pay. The Fed messes up we pay. We always pay. Knowing that we should choose how we make our planned expenditures more wisely so we can minimize our unplanned expenditures.

 

[#1Freak]

anybody have a link to the operating contract between the State and the private company? Does it say the private company is responsible for capital UPGRADES?, or just maintenance? On the surface, to me increasing the spillway capacity in a material way is not maintenance. I would like to see that contract before I drawn a conclusion as to who is responsible. I would not want to make a judgement without all the facts, like most of you here are doing. But you all continue on with your own narrative that fits your needs and wants.

 

[wannabe]

anybody have a link to the operating contract between the State and the private company? Does it say the private company is responsible for capital UPGRADES?, or just maintenance? On the surface, to me increasing the spillway capacity in a material way is not maintenance. I would like to see that contract before I drawn a conclusion as to who is responsible. I would not want to make a judgement without all the facts, like most of you here are doing. But you all continue on with your own narrative that fits your needs and wants.

Not an operating contract, but a 29-page copy of the actual order that the Feds filed to revoke their operating permit to generate electricity. The entire history is there if you want to read the details so you can make up your mind based on these facts.

https://www.ferc.gov/CalendarFiles/20180910172800-P-10808-058.pdf

 

[#1Freak]

thank you sir, that will be my bedtime reading

 

[wannabe]

thank you sir, that will be my bedtime reading

Read it until the end. I went all the way through it. In the beginning, my mind was made up on whose fault this was, but when I got to the last few pages, things got to be a lot more gray....

I'm curious to find out if you have the same reaction.

 

[#1Freak]

so, that is a good doc. I still don't know who is contractually obligated to pay for the work to the spillway. To me this seems like a lease. In the original agreement, which party is responsible for capital work? Seems like the state is passing the buck because when the dam was built it, it was built flawed, or environmental changes since it was built require significantly rework. Sounds like given the terms of the operating agreement and the revenue Boyd can charge for power, they do not have to capital to make the upgrade. they could not get capital because of the slow regulatory process to get specific plans and cost to a third party builder/financier (nobody is going to throw around a loan with so much still up in the air, no plans approved or submitted, or reviewed). SO around and around they went. Absent the operating contract, why did the state just not pay for the upgrade if it was a public safety hazard, THEN terminate the agreement. Both parties are obstanent, and the public pays for it.

I believe the state is negligent in letting this problem go for so long, they should have stepped in and done the upgrade a long time ago and figure out the money later. But ultimately i want to see the operating contract to see if it address capital projects (outside of maintenance). I would bet that it spells out it is the state's responsibility, but I could be wrong. I also think the operating agreement would spell out how much the LLC could charge and the revenues received, and would show that in those bounds there was no way the LLC would be able to absorb the cost of such a project given its revenue and cost limitations. So the llc could have and possibly should have walked away for the original agreement or renegotiated it.

 

[wannabe]

Wow, ok. You got a completely different set of facts out of that document than I did.

 

[#1Freak]

what are your thoughts?

my end thoughts is right now i still dont know, need to see the originally operating agreement

 

[UDRider]

Well considering they were dragging their heals and blowing smoke up state regulators asses on improving spillway capacity since 2004 I would say they were on a hook, and didn't want to spend the money to actually do it.