WASHINGTON - The Bureau of Reclamation's recent report provided insight on what an Auburn dam could mean for our region. The report is clear that under certain conditions an Auburn dam could:

• Provide 500-year flood protection;

• Generate significant water supply and hydroelectric power revenues; and

• Provide positive recreational and environmental benefits along the American River.

Congress directed the bureau to prepare a special report within the parameters of the latest design for an Auburn dam, which took place in 1978. This required the bureau to adapt a 30-year-old design to meet current conditions and make numerous assumptions to develop a range of potential benefit values and costs.

It is unfortunate that The Bee selected the most unfavorable range of benefit and cost values and presented it as if it were a report finding. The report states no conclusions or recommendations but rather provides information to use as a catalyst for a constructive discussion about flood control.

One finding that is clear, however, is that our region is faced with twice the risk and half the protection from catastrophic flooding as New Orleans had been prior to Katrina.

Tacoma, St. Louis, Dallas and Kansas City are the other major cities at risk of catastrophic flooding. All have 500-year flood protection. Besides New Orleans, only Omaha has a mere 250-year flood protection. Astoundingly, our region currently has roughly 85-year flood protection. We have labored hard to put in motion major repairs of the levees and modifications of Folsom dam, and look forward to their completion over the coming decade. Unfortunately, the most Sacramento can hope to achieve from all these improvements is 220-year flood protection.

The costs of an Auburn dam referenced in the report are undeniably large, though it is highly possible with the new technology, hydrology and seismology available that a reformulated dam could cost significantly less. But in the context of the $124 billion the federal government has spent post-Katrina, the expenditure of $9.6 billion to achieve 500-year flood protection seems prudent.

We recognize that there would be trade-offs if an Auburn dam were built. Would those costs outweigh the lives and property saved if a catastrophic flood were to hit the region? And if an Auburn dam is not an option, then what is? Let us not lose sight of the fact that our efforts are aimed at reversing the greatest potential natural threat facing the people of this region.