Smaller flood basin for Cuesta Annex? Other Issues, posted by Editor, Mountain View Voice Online, on Aug 4, 2011 at 2:27 pm
A close look at the way water drains off the hills into Permanente Creek has revealed 300 acres that do not drain into the creek, reducing the need for proposed flood basins in Mountain View and a dam upstream that would destroy wildlife habitat.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, August 4, 2011, 11:27 AM
Posted by Ron, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2011 at 2:39 pm
I'm sorry, but this sort of smacks of "We over exaggerated our needs to get the things we wanted built. But now that one of them cannot be built, suddenly we find we need less than we thought so that it will still work." I also find it ridiculous that MV is putting so much effort into preventing a flood that they have no modern record of being an issue.
Posted by Suggestion for Study, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm
I've heard that another 1,000 homes in the area could be "saved" with improvements to Hale Creek. Those improvements are defined, but they didn't make the cut when the project plan called for basins at 4 locations. Perhaps with no investment now needed at Blach, the Hale Creek improvements could make their way into the plan.
It would surprise many residents that the current plan of improvements to Permanente Creek will not change their flood zone status...even some of those living very near Permanente. Their status would change with these known improvements to Hale Creek.
Posted by @Bruce, a resident of the Cuernavaca neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2011 at 5:13 pm
The diversion canal you mention is the diversion channel in the last two paragraphs of the article. There has been no major flooding since the channel was built. That doesn't mean it can't happen but it's at least less likely than it once was.
Posted by NeHi, a resident of the Cuesta Park neighborhood, on Aug 4, 2011 at 5:33 pm
"300 Acres that do not drain into [Permanente] Creek"; that's less than 1/2 sq. mi. And that would eliminate a dam and make a flood basin smaller?? What else would "reduce the need for a dam" mean??
Bruce, my house is in the area where there was a flood in 1955 or 1956 [I chased high-water marks from those floods thru N. Cal., brutal]. I drove El Camino from P.A. north in the 1958 flood which was pretty bad, couldn't always see the median line. I see no evidence of damage from any flood.
Conclusion: I don't think there is nearly enuf info for a conclusion.
Posted by Waldo, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 1:22 pm
I was here in the 1950s, and there was lots of rain and flooding, along with logging in the mountains and new construction throughout the area. If it happened to that extent today, Hwy 237 would be underwater near Alviso, and parts of MV could be underwater as well, in which case flood basins at Cuesta and McKelvey would be invaluable.
Posted by Rick, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Aug 5, 2011 at 7:21 pm
How many minutes would it take to fill these little basins in the great flood. Not many I suspect. If the basins are below the drain system, how would they be drained after a normal winter day of rain. One of them is a ball park. Needs to be kept dry. Stagnant water can't stay in these basins.