Abstract

The 2017 crisis at Lake Oroville has motivated the collection of an abundance of detailed information about the history and operation of the tallest dam in the United States, and made the case for studies seeking to improve the way dams and other critical infrastructure are operated and maintained. Existing investigative efforts rely on a risk‐management approach that reinforces the dam safety practices that are already in place. The risk-based approach places emphasis on the specific mechanisms that caused the main spillway to collapse. Consequently, it provides little insight into how the spillway collapse and subsequent response precipitated a massive, preventable evacuation and the worst‐case scenario: loss of crest control. A resilience‐based approach complements the risk‐based research that has already been completed to attain valuable understanding of such an event. Resilience research analyzes the interconnected decisions that steered the path of the Oroville dam and reservoir system toward crisis. This paper presents a decision timeline in that will inform resilience analysis. Three distinct themes emerge: 1) misalignment of technical nomenclature and design standards for the ungated spillway, 2) overconfidence in engineering designs and practices, and 3) conflicting pressure from diverse stakeholders. These factors contributed to unrealistic perceptions of dam capabilities and promoted decisions to forgo maintenance and design efforts that may have averted the crisis.

Original languageEnglish (US)
StatePublished - Jan 1 2018
Event2018 ASDSO Annual Dam Safety Conference - Seattle, United States
Duration: Sep 9 2018Sep 13 2018

Other

Other2018 ASDSO Annual Dam Safety Conference
CountryUnited States
CitySeattle
Period9/9/189/13/18

Fingerprint

Dams
Spillways
Critical infrastructures
Terminology
Lakes
History

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Architecture
  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Building and Construction
  • Civil and Structural Engineering

Cite this

Hollins, L., Eisenberg, D. A., & Seager, T. (2018). A comparison of risk and resilience interpretations of the crisis at Oroville. Paper presented at 2018 ASDSO Annual Dam Safety Conference, Seattle, United States.

A comparison of risk and resilience interpretations of the crisis at Oroville. / Hollins, Lucien; Eisenberg, Daniel A.; Seager, Thomas.

2018. Paper presented at 2018 ASDSO Annual Dam Safety Conference, Seattle, United States.

Research output: Contribution to conferencePaper

Hollins, L, Eisenberg, DA & Seager, T 2018, 'A comparison of risk and resilience interpretations of the crisis at Oroville' Paper presented at 2018 ASDSO Annual Dam Safety Conference, Seattle, United States, 9/9/18 - 9/13/18, .
Hollins L, Eisenberg DA, Seager T. A comparison of risk and resilience interpretations of the crisis at Oroville. 2018. Paper presented at 2018 ASDSO Annual Dam Safety Conference, Seattle, United States.
Hollins, Lucien ; Eisenberg, Daniel A. ; Seager, Thomas. / A comparison of risk and resilience interpretations of the crisis at Oroville. Paper presented at 2018 ASDSO Annual Dam Safety Conference, Seattle, United States.
@conference{d3a9c284c33d44e2b9eb498c8b482b36,
title = "A comparison of risk and resilience interpretations of the crisis at Oroville",
abstract = "The 2017 crisis at Lake Oroville has motivated the collection of an abundance of detailed information about the history and operation of the tallest dam in the United States, and made the case for studies seeking to improve the way dams and other critical infrastructure are operated and maintained. Existing investigative efforts rely on a risk‐management approach that reinforces the dam safety practices that are already in place. The risk-based approach places emphasis on the specific mechanisms that caused the main spillway to collapse. Consequently, it provides little insight into how the spillway collapse and subsequent response precipitated a massive, preventable evacuation and the worst‐case scenario: loss of crest control. A resilience‐based approach complements the risk‐based research that has already been completed to attain valuable understanding of such an event. Resilience research analyzes the interconnected decisions that steered the path of the Oroville dam and reservoir system toward crisis. This paper presents a decision timeline in that will inform resilience analysis. Three distinct themes emerge: 1) misalignment of technical nomenclature and design standards for the ungated spillway, 2) overconfidence in engineering designs and practices, and 3) conflicting pressure from diverse stakeholders. These factors contributed to unrealistic perceptions of dam capabilities and promoted decisions to forgo maintenance and design efforts that may have averted the crisis.",
author = "Lucien Hollins and Eisenberg, {Daniel A.} and Thomas Seager",
year = "2018",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
note = "2018 ASDSO Annual Dam Safety Conference ; Conference date: 09-09-2018 Through 13-09-2018",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - A comparison of risk and resilience interpretations of the crisis at Oroville

AU - Hollins, Lucien

AU - Eisenberg, Daniel A.

AU - Seager, Thomas

PY - 2018/1/1

Y1 - 2018/1/1

N2 - The 2017 crisis at Lake Oroville has motivated the collection of an abundance of detailed information about the history and operation of the tallest dam in the United States, and made the case for studies seeking to improve the way dams and other critical infrastructure are operated and maintained. Existing investigative efforts rely on a risk‐management approach that reinforces the dam safety practices that are already in place. The risk-based approach places emphasis on the specific mechanisms that caused the main spillway to collapse. Consequently, it provides little insight into how the spillway collapse and subsequent response precipitated a massive, preventable evacuation and the worst‐case scenario: loss of crest control. A resilience‐based approach complements the risk‐based research that has already been completed to attain valuable understanding of such an event. Resilience research analyzes the interconnected decisions that steered the path of the Oroville dam and reservoir system toward crisis. This paper presents a decision timeline in that will inform resilience analysis. Three distinct themes emerge: 1) misalignment of technical nomenclature and design standards for the ungated spillway, 2) overconfidence in engineering designs and practices, and 3) conflicting pressure from diverse stakeholders. These factors contributed to unrealistic perceptions of dam capabilities and promoted decisions to forgo maintenance and design efforts that may have averted the crisis.

AB - The 2017 crisis at Lake Oroville has motivated the collection of an abundance of detailed information about the history and operation of the tallest dam in the United States, and made the case for studies seeking to improve the way dams and other critical infrastructure are operated and maintained. Existing investigative efforts rely on a risk‐management approach that reinforces the dam safety practices that are already in place. The risk-based approach places emphasis on the specific mechanisms that caused the main spillway to collapse. Consequently, it provides little insight into how the spillway collapse and subsequent response precipitated a massive, preventable evacuation and the worst‐case scenario: loss of crest control. A resilience‐based approach complements the risk‐based research that has already been completed to attain valuable understanding of such an event. Resilience research analyzes the interconnected decisions that steered the path of the Oroville dam and reservoir system toward crisis. This paper presents a decision timeline in that will inform resilience analysis. Three distinct themes emerge: 1) misalignment of technical nomenclature and design standards for the ungated spillway, 2) overconfidence in engineering designs and practices, and 3) conflicting pressure from diverse stakeholders. These factors contributed to unrealistic perceptions of dam capabilities and promoted decisions to forgo maintenance and design efforts that may have averted the crisis.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056882058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056882058&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Paper

AN - SCOPUS:85056882058

ER -