Dear Sir - You failed to present a full cost/benefit analysis and in doing so presented misleading and incomplete information in your argument. Construction costs of a dam are not the only costs that need to be considered. The Auburn Dam site is located along a fault line, thus increasing the risk of a dam failure. The risk of such an event occurring may seem small, but the damage from such an event, in terms of economics and loss of life, would be calamitous. Your arguments for increased recreational benefits have been claimed in dam proposals for the past half century with few realized benefits over time. In fact according to the report in 2007 from the Bureau of Reclamation on the costs and benefits of Auburn Dam, the dam would result in an annual net loss of $5 million in recreation-related income! Dams may provide flow control, but generally cause much colder water temperatures - often to the detriment of instream species (are you really making a case for dam building as a means of salmon preservation/restoration!? - bold). You also argue that the dam will provide enhanced protection for the land and habitat of the American River Parkway, but what of the land and habitat that will be submerged by the reservoir? And what about species adapted to varying water levels and flow rates? There are also intrinsic values associated with the natural environment that need to be, at the very least, acknowledged as well. While Auburn Dam would provide addition flood control benefits (about an extra 10% after the Folsom Dam upgrades), the costs of doing so are prohibitively expensive. In the end it would be another dam built for the sake of building another dam. Didn't we do enough of that in the 40s and 50s?