I think the dam is only included in Alternative 1, which is the most comprehensive (and most destructive) package, and is also the one the Governor's task force (made up mostly of land and business owners who want flood protection) is recommending. It's esentially a wish list.

Looking at the proposed, estimated inundation reductions associated with the various alternatives, the dam really only adds significant protection in the upper basin, and the area of I-5 that flooded in 2007 would still be inundated and blocked, if to a lesser extent. The State's big interest in this project lies in avoiding another costly shutdown of I-5, and the proposed dam apparently wouldn't do that (at least not completely). Be sure to include that fact in the public comments you all WILL be submitting (right?). Factor in the costs of building the dam and mitigating the habitat loss, and I think alternative 1 is probably off the table for the Governor.

I suspect we'll end up with a different alternative, or maybe even something altogether different, but we'll see. Alternative 2 seems like the right combination of job creation and protection of key areas, though we all know what levees do, sooner or later....

Get those comments in, and make sure to mention that a dam won't keep I-5 above water.