In a key environmental test, a U.S. House committee Thursday soundly defeated a controversial plan to build a $1-billion flood control dam on the American River 35 miles from Sacramento.
The 35-28 vote dealt a severe blow to supporters of the massive public works project, almost certainly killing any chance of its being revived this year–and perhaps stalling it indefinitely.
“We’re obviously talking about the next Congress,” said Northern California Rep. John Doolittle (R-Rocklin), the dam’s most zealous advocate.
The 508-foot Auburn Dam would flood more than 5,000 acres of river canyons dear to rafters and kayakers, but its proponents–members of both parties representing the Sacramento area–said the structure was essential to prevent catastrophic damage if the region is hit by a historic flood.
Proponents and foes alike also regard the dam as a potential water resource that would fuel development in the Sacramento valley.
But the dam ran into an election-year double whammy of intense environmental opposition and fiscal tight-fistedness that made a pro-dam vote a risk most members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee were unwilling to take.
“We’ll have to wait for a calmer environment,” Doolittle said at a gloomy post-vote press conference.
Doolittle, joined by three colleagues–Reps. Vic Fazio (D-West Sacramento), Robert Matsui (D-Sacramento) and Richard Pombo (R-Tracy)–vowed to continue fighting for the dam, perhaps through amendment on the House floor.
“But the odds are not good,” Doolittle said. “We will regroup over the [July 4th] break.”
Gov. Pete Wilson also issued a statement decrying the vote: “Despite the strong support of the region’s congressional delegation, the state and local officials, a coalition of narrow interests has derailed much-needed flood protection for Sacramento residents once again.”
The six California members on the committee split along party lines. The four Republicans–Reps. Steve Horn of Long Beach, Jay C. Kim of Diamond Bar, Bill Baker of Danville and Andrea Seastrand of Shell Beach–sided with Doolittle. Democrats Bob Filner of San Diego and Juanita Millender-McDonald of Carson voted against the plan.
After the dam was defeated, the committee approved an alternate amendment by ranking member Rep. James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) calling for $57 million to stabilize existing flood control levees in the region. Advocates of the dam call such remedies inadequate.
Environmental groups, which mounted a vigorous campaign against the dam hailed the vote–but acknowledged that they had not heard the last of Doolittle.
“He is fiercely determined to build this dam and inundate 50 miles of American River canyons,” said Ron Stork, a spokesman for Friends of the River. “I don’t think anything will deter him. It’s his holy quest.”
Dam proponents face a daunting task to convince a majority in Congress to go along with such an expensive project.
“The era of big dams is over, and the federal budget continues to shrink,” said Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Mich.)
Moderate Republicans on the committee, wary of polls showing voters upset with GOP efforts to rein in environmental laws, were not swayed by the pleas of the Sacramento members to build the dam to save lives and property during a massive flood.
Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) asked rhetorically, “Should we ignore the danger to Sacramento? No. But the size of this dam puts Cecil B. DeMille to shame.”
Doolittle and local officials argued that building the dam would be cost-efficient compared to the cost in lives and property damage should a major flood hit the area.
Dam supporters said that 400,000 people downstream are endangered if the structure is not built.
Doolittle’s plan would require that the dam’s design allow its expansion into a larger multipurpose structure that permanently retains a lake and supplies water and electricity to nearby homes, farms and businesses.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would build the dam, estimated to cost $950 million. The federal government would pay three-quarters of the cost. State and local taxpayers would pay the rest.
Expansion into a multipurpose dam would cost hundreds of millions of dollars more but would be covered by local water agencies.
But opponents doubt the doomsday scenario, decry the 40 miles of pristine river canyons that would be flooded and say the dam construction play is simply a sop to developers.
Critics also contend that Doolittle is using flood control as an excuse to get the federal government to pay for what ultimately would be a residential and recreational water project.
The Army Corps of Engineers in Washington, citing budget concerns, did not back the proposal, and the Environmental Protection Agency said the dam “would result in significant, unacceptable impacts to unique natural resources of national significance.”
Environmental groups describe the lands that would be flooded by the dam as scenic and popular with kayakers, rafters and swimmers. The heavily forested canyons are rich in wildlife and are visited by thousands of visitors a year.
The Auburn Dam proposal has been around for nearly 40 years. Construction actually started in 1967 but was halted 10 years later after a 5.7-magnitude earthquake shook the area.
A redesigned dam was rejected in 1992, but with the takeover of Congress by the Republicans in 1994, Doolittle and others resuscitated the idea.