New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Biden Infrastructure Plan Lacks Most Important Facet

Looks like just about everything Biden does, he does wrong. Although there are things in Biden's infrastructure plan (called the American Jobs Plan) that are worthwhile, and could even help me personally, I would be remiss to not point out the glaring BIG DEFECT in this huge undertaking.

It can be expressed simply in 2 words > DAMS & LEVEES.

1. Dams - I see no mention of the nations dams in Biden's infrastructure plan. This is a huge defect.
There are 85,000 dams in the USA, 4000 of them are unsafe, and 1899 of those are high hazard meaning they likely could kill people if they breach. These have quadrupled since 2001. (this is just by nature, not considering terrorist attack).

According to Brad Iarossi of the American Society of Civil Engineers, the number of unsafe dams is growing at a 45 degree angle on the graph, while the number we repair each year is a straight line (no increase or decrease). This gap is going to get wider and wider, until we get a funding source, and start reversing this trend, or we start having a major collapse of dams nationwide.

A few examples of some of the worst of these are >> a coal ash dam run by the Tennessee Valley Authority in Kingston, TN, which breached, spilling over a Billion gallons of hazardous waste across a 300 acre stretch of the Emory River. Another is the Grand Teton Dam, in Idaho. In 1976, 14 people died in the flooding. Hundreds of homes and other structures were destroyed. A more recent dam failure was the Ka Loko dam in Kilauea, Hawaii. This earthen dam, over 100 years old gave way in 2006, after a heavy rain.

All these were very bad but even they are relatively minor compared to the worst catastrophe in US history that looms right before us with the terrifying Wolf Creek Dam. Over the years, the US Army Corps of Engineers have done patchwork on the dam. In October 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers placed the dam under a 'high risk' for failure designation, and warning sirens were installed in counties downstream from the dam. In 2014, a barrier wall was constructed to help fortify the dam, and levels of lake Cumberland have been lowered to reduce stress.

If breached the effects of this would be unimaginable catastrophe. >> The powerful tsunami rushing down from the dam picks up trees, trucks, power lines and other debris, creating a battering ram at the front of the surge, simply obliterating everything in its path. In 2.5 days, the surge travels 280 river miles and hits Nashville, the Tennessee state capitol. Nashville is submerged under 20 feet of water. Titan Stadium will look more like Seaworld. Thousands of people along the Cumberland River would be killed and the destruction would looks like 100 category five hurricanes.

It is true that recent upgrades have brought the Wolf creek Dam from a DSAC rating of 1 (critical), up to DSAC 3, Wolf Creek Dam’s new classification, >> “high priority, conditionally unsafe; significantly inadequate, or moderate to high risk.” which is better than the previous rating, and some Corps officials have claimed it to now be safe, but one has to consider their vested interest scenario +the rating (which still isn't all that good) is relative to normal conditions, not accounting for conditions of natural disasters (hurricane, earthquake, tornado). There is also the terrorist threat, with a security aspect.

Biden's plan ? Nothing.

Another overlooked critical infrastructure problem is the California delta levees. These have been in existence for 150 years and were constructed of mostly just earth and mud. They are highly subject to failure, and if so (caused by an earthquake in the region let's say) the agricultural lands they protect will flood, triggering a chain of events that would pull salt water from the San Francisco Bay area into the delta, and contaminate the drinking water supply for half the population of California. And the ramification of that ? According to University of California Geologist, Jeffery Mount, it is shutting off the water supply for 25 million people for 2-3 years.

The delta streams provide 1/2 the drinking water of California, from San Francisco to Los Angeles. They flow into a massive reservoir 89 miles southeast of San Francisco called the Clifton Forebay. According to Doug Thompson of the California Dept.of Water Resources, if it wasn't for this system, California would be "dry down south".

Here is a not at all unlikely scenario. A 6.7 earthquake with an epicenter close to the delta occurs. The islands flooding is so powerful, it pulls 300 Billion gallons of salt water inland, all the way to Clifton Forebay, which then has to close its gates, to prevent contamination of the reservoir.

California would have to ration the water in the Forebay, but it would run out in about 6 months, and it would take 2-3 years for the delta to return to normal (assuming perfect conditions that whole time, ie. no earthquakes). Bay area experts say there's a 66% chance that a 6.7 earthquake or a large flood will take down the levees some time over the next 30 years. Needless to say 25 million people would be forced to evacuate, for 2-3 years minimum. But where would they go ? Wherever that is, it would put huge stresses on the places they move to.

COST to fix ? Authorities estimate it will take $25-40 Million per square mile to quake-proof the delta levees. Money that California does not have. It would have to come from the federal government. So what is California doing about this catastrophe waiting to happen ? They have been shoring up the levees with sloping and adding rocks, but those treatments are like giving aspirins to a cancer victim. Bottom line is California has no plan for dealing with this catastrophic threat.

Neither does Joe Biden.

INFRASTRUCTURE Report - DAMS | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

(12) INFRASTRUCTURE - Part 2 - California Catastrophe | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
 
False.
There is $17B for dams. There probably should be more.

Your post is what is FALSE. Here's what you link says >> "Biden’s plan calls for spending $17 billion on ports and waterways, which would include locks and dams."

Since the sentence refers to ports and waterways (neither of which is dams), the portion that is dams, if there is any, could be less than 1% of that $17 billion. It could be a dime.

Also the link has no real source itself. The best we get from your link article is >> "an administration official" (essentially an anonymous source - equivalent to none at all)

Think about it. Why do all the other articles about Biden's infrastructure have no mention of dams, and when we find just ONE that does, it rests on an anonymous source. FAIL.

Lastly, you entire link article is essentially saying the same thing that I 'm saying - that dams have been overlooked. Read the whole article.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Your post is what is FALSE. Here's what you link says >> "Biden’s plan calls for spending $17 billion on ports and waterways, which would include locks and dams."

Since the sentence refers to ports and waterways (neither of which is dams), the portion that is dams, if there is any, could be less than 1% of that $17 billion. It could be a dime.

Also the link has no real source itself. The best we get from your link article is >> "an administration official" (essentially an anonymous source - equivalent to none at all)

Think about it. Why do all the other articles about Biden's infrastructure have no mention of dams, and when we find just ONE that does, it rests on an anonymous source. FAIL.

Lastly, you entire link article is essentially saying the same thing that I 'm saying - that dams have been overlooked. Read the whole article.
The funding includes locks and dams. You wrote it yourself.

It should be higher. Hopefully, the congress will correct it.

Have you ever had a post where you didn't make a fool of yourself?
 
The funding includes locks and dams. You wrote it yourself.

It should be higher. Hopefully, the congress will correct it.

Have you ever had a post where you didn't make a fool of yourself?
That's what YOU just did. Reread Post # 3. In time, you'll get it.

Oh "includes" does it ? HA HA HA. Like I said, "includes" could be a dime (or a penny)

Yes, it should be MUCH higher. My point, and that of your link.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
That's what YOU just did. Reread Post # 3. In time, you'll get it.

Oh "includes" does it ? HA HA HA. Like I said, "includes" could be a dime (or a penny)

Yes, it should be MUCH higher. My point, and that of your link.
Again, there is funding for Dams. You're premise is nonsense.

It should be more.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
If I give you a nickel, for a cancer problem, you call it "funding" ?
Yes.

Yes I would. Since you seem to have brain cancer, you should save your money.

I would also disagree with someone making the statement that there was no money given to fund the brain cancer research on which your life seems to depend.
 
So Biden blew it badly on the infrastructure too, All that money, and what for dams ? It's so small, we cant even find out what it is. IF there is anything at all. So far, an anonymous source is the only hook up to it - which is NOTHING.

Another screwup by the highjacker posing as POTUS, with his brains falling out out his head.
 
Only a dishonest hack would say that $17B is "no funding".
Agreed. But no one has said that except you. HA HA. And while we're on the subject of "no one saying", no one has also said that one dime will go to dams in Biden's infrastructure bill. So far the only so-called source in this thread for money going to dams is from a CNN ANONYMOUS source (aka > NO ONE) 1620477334489.png
 

Addy

Rebuild With Biden!
Agreed. But no one has said that except you. HA HA. And while we're on the subject of "no one saying", no one has also said that one dime will go to dams in Biden's infrastructure bill. So far the only so-called source in this thread for money going to dams is from a CNN ANONYMOUS source (aka > NO ONE) View attachment 62907
Does the republicans' revised version of the infrastructure plan specifically state dams?
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
Agreed. But no one has said that except you. HA HA. And while we're on the subject of "no one saying", no one has also said that one dime will go to dams in Biden's infrastructure bill. So far the only so-called source in this thread for money going to dams is from a CNN ANONYMOUS source (aka > NO ONE) View attachment 62907
You are admitting to being a dishonest hack in that case.
 

condorkristy

Mostly Liberal
No, YOU admit to being a supporter of illegal alien illegal voting.
You seem to have your threads mixed up....

At first you said there was no funding for dams. I pointed out there is $17B.

When painted into a corner where your lie was demonstrated...

Now you're talking about "illegal alien illegal voting"....
 
You seem to have your threads mixed up....

At first you said there was no funding for dams. I pointed out there is $17B.

When painted into a corner where your lie was demonstrated...

Now you're talking about "illegal alien illegal voting"....
You pointed out wrong. I pointed out that he only so-called source in this thread for money going to dams is from a CNN ANONYMOUS source (aka > NO ONE)
 
Top