Patrick said:
Dave, it's been raining for a week, this wasn't a flash flood, this was a continual downpour, and if the damage was the result of a flash flood in an area prone to flash flooding, you have to question site selection from the get go.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding regarding the nature of a flash flood. This wasnt caused by rain falling at Rustic, but rather from runoff well above. As I have explained repeatedly, Rustic is at the lower end of a watershed which extends about a dozen miles back into the mountains, draining not only the main canyon but all the side canyons as well. Tens of millions of cubic feet of water fell in the watershed and it didn't trickle toward the ocean (Rustic drops around 250 feet from the top end to the bottom.) To the contrary, it roared like a raging river, rapids and all, taking out everything in its path. A description of flash floods from FEMA's website:
Flash flood waters move at very fast speeds and can roll boulders, tear out trees, destroy buildings, and obliterate bridges. Walls of water can reach heights of 10 to 20 feet and generally are accompanied by a deadly cargo of debris. That's generally what happened at Rustic.
As for flooding, judging from the pattern of debris, there must have been a very large (but short lived) water buildup at the bottom of the course. This too was a direct result of the flash flood. Trees, boulders, bridges, tons of silty sand, and a whole lot of water roared through the canyon until it ran into a neighborhood (Brad Klein Estates) built across the canyon's end. At that point the water was supposed to pass through a very large culvert past the neighborhoods and into a drainage and on toward the Pacific. Presumably there was so much water coming so quickly that it had no where to go, especially after the culvert was partially blocked by a tree and other debris. The county had just dug out a large overflow pond in case the culvert couldnt keep up but this was quickly filled with silt and mud. With nowhere to go, the water backed up into the course, overflowing its old channel and creating new ones, and the lower part of the course was covered with silt and waste.
In short, your elevated tee boxes, greens, and features would not have stood a chance. My guess is that the only way to avoid this flash flood damage would have been to build the course well away from the existing wash and at an elevation well above entire course. Even then you'd have to be lucky, because this wash changes course pretty indiscriminately in a situation like this and can eat massive portions of solid ground in creating its new path.
Also, they would have had to have anticipated that the municipality's runoff plan would not clear the water, and build the course accordingly. As there was damage from canyon wall to canyon wall at the bottom of the course, this would have entailed estimating how far water would back up the canyon and building above that point.
Dave, I'm not talking about features elevated 30 feet above the playiing surface, I'm talking about prudent elevations.
Patrick, I am no engineer, but I can tell you that elevated tee boxes and greens will not withstand the direct force of that much water. In fact, this flood made me wonder if low profile features are better equipped to handle a direct hit from a flash flood. I was extremely surprised to find that, while trees and huge bushes were uprooted and gone, for the most part the tee boxes and greens were intact underneath the silt and debris. The water essentially flowed over them.
How many times can you afford to rebuild them ?
And, what's the long range impact on the golf course and it's ability to grow grass to satisfactory playing conditions.
I have no idea. How many times is the course going to experience this circumstance?
Engineering principles don't vary by zip codes and common sense is called "common" for a reason.
Engineering principles may not vary but circumstances do.
Then why is the railroad bed intact and the highway a mud puddle ? Especially when the railroad bed gets hit with the runnoff from the hills first ?
Again, you completely misunderstand the situation. The runoff from the hills immediately above the freeway did not cause that flooding. Rather it is an accumulation of runoff from a very large area. I dont know what specifically happened but my guess is that the normal channels for runoff are blocked, perhaps by a slide. Regardless the point of the picture was the highway. Golf designers did not build highway 101, civil engineers did.
As for the railroads, this storm has brutilized their infrastructure, virtually shutting them down, and the consequences are being felt nationwide. A few hundred yards of seemingly undamaged track does not a railroad make.
I don't think JakaB is off base when he asks questions about golf course construction in an area prone to flooding, or, questions about the selection of a site prone to flooding.
I dont think JakaB is off base for asking about or opining on the situation. Nor do I think you are off base. But you are both wrong, and I am offering my opinion to the contrary. And by the way John did not ask about the site selection, he commented on the green heights (same as you) and compared the situation to that at Seminole, of all places. One would be hard pressed to come up with a less applicable comparison.
If I'm not mistaken, some remediation was done to lessen the problem by elevating some features at that time.
I think you are mistaken. Some remediation and repair took place, but I do not think anything was intentionally elevated.
Are you suggesting that any problem should be ignored ?
Not at all. They have some very difficult decisions to make. This storm substantially changed the shape of the wash and the elevations of much of the land; Where there used to be low spots, there are now high spots, and visa versa; Deep channels where cuts where none existed before, and other trenches were leveled. It is not the same landscape as it was a week ago. They will have to look at the situation and decide on the best course of action, and I do not envy their task.
That being said, I sure hope they come to an accurate understanding of what happened, as well as the pros and cons of the various solutions.
How can developers be allowed to build homes and structures perilously close to steep faced, unstable hills/mountains, in an area known for earthquakes, forest fires, slide and flood conditions ?
There is an inherent flaw in the thinking, development and building process in that neck of the woods, and you don't want to come to grips with that reality.
Much of coastal Southern California consists of steep faced, unstable hills/mountains and is prone to earthquakes, fires, flash floods, and mudslides. So you are essentially asking,
Why do people choose to live in Southern California? The simple answer for the hundreds of thousands of people who are moving here annually: The pros dwarf the cons; the rewards outweigh the risks.