Building Dams to Stop Floods

* George Skelton’s Jan. 6 column, “Be Careful What River You Ask For,” stands logic on its head.

Skelton says, “those monstrous dams . . . have saved billions of dollars in property and thousands of lives since New Year’s.” This is like saying the Peruvian guerrillas have saved hundreds of lives by letting some of the prisoners go. Let’s get this straight: First we build dams; second we develop the flood plains. (Why do you suppose they are called “flood” plains?) Then when we get more rain than the dams can handle, the property that doesn’t get damaged is counted as billions saved. Talk about voodoo economics!

Before the dams, people built on high ground or not at all. Now they have a false sense of security from those monstrous dams. Anyone who can read history will see that you can’t build dams big enough or levees high enough to stop a good rain. And we, the taxpayers, will not only pay for the dams but also for the disaster relief. The developers are home and dry somewhere else, paying taxes in Nassau. I propose that if the great high dam at Auburn is ever built, we call it the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Dam, in honor of the hostages that will soon be building their homes in its shadow.

CHARLES G. BRAGG JR.

Pacific Palisades

* While everyone seems to be condemning the rivers, maybe we should try to remember that if they hadn’t flooded the plain for eons, there wouldn’t be any farms there in the first place! In this light, the flooding is a beautiful sight--restoring soil and nutrients naturally to the fields.

TERRY KREMIN

Culver City