Dr. George D. Ashton

Dr. George Ashton

U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory

Enclosed is a hydraulic study I have performed. (See Exhibit 6.) Also attached is the professional opinion of Dr. George Ashton, former Chief Scientist, USA CRREL. (See Exhibit 7.)
...
7. Letter - Dr. George D. Ashton to Ashton Engineering, Inc., stating his professional opinion on the increased flood stages. (Dr. Ashton holds a Ph.D. in hydraulics from the Iowa Hydraulic Institute - his resume is attached.)

1. My twin brother, Dr. George D. Ashton, who has a Ph.D. in hydraulics from the Iowa Hydraulic Institute, was the former Chief Scientist at the Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Laboratory, and is recognized worldwide for his hydraulic expertise.George is familiar with Davenport and has previously studied this reach of the Mississippi River.Dr. Ashton's technical review of the same documents is attached as Exhibit A.
...
Dr. Ashton questioned this routing since water has never been allowed to go down the slough in a major flood event.
...
Ashton was engaged by the city (Hargreaves) and prepared a certified memorandum to guide construction on the new Centennial Park so there would not be increased flood stages caused by blocking the flow across Centennial Park.This water that the city was concerned about at Centennial Park is the same water that IOC wants to block by construction of a floodwall.

It is this water flowing over the seawall upstream of Dam No. 15 that is in dispute.SCI calculates the volume to be 668 cfs flowing over the wall in the first 6,500 feet above the dam.Dr. Ashton computes 2,500 cfs in the first 3,000 feet, and Mr. Schliekelman computes approximately 3,500 cfs.
...
Dr. Ashton also refutes this SCI assumption repeatedly.I have seen flood flows spilling over the wall and know from personal observation that SCI's assumed conditions are incorrect.

There are other theoretical problems with the SCI analysis as described in Dr. Ashton's letter to me, but it is not necessary to understand these theoretical issues to get a clear understanding that SCI's water-volume calculation is in error.

Enclosed is a hydraulic study I have performed. (See Exhibit 6.) Also attached is the professional opinion of Dr. George Ashton, former Chief Scientist, USA CRREL. (See Exhibit 7.)
...
7. Letter - Dr. George D. Ashton to Ashton Engineering, Inc., stating his professional opinion on the increased flood stages. (Dr. Ashton holds a Ph.D. in hydraulics from the Iowa Hydraulic Institute - his resume is attached.)

1. My twin brother, Dr. George D. Ashton, who has a Ph.D. in hydraulics from the Iowa Hydraulic Institute, was the former Chief Scientist at the Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Laboratory, and is recognized worldwide for his hydraulic expertise.George is familiar with Davenport and has previously studied this reach of the Mississippi River.Dr. Ashton's technical review of the same documents is attached as Exhibit A.
...
Dr. Ashton questioned this routing since water has never been allowed to go down the slough in a major flood event.
...
Ashton was engaged by the city (Hargreaves) and prepared a certified memorandum to guide construction on the new Centennial Park so there would not be increased flood stages caused by blocking the flow across Centennial Park.This water that the city was concerned about at Centennial Park is the same water that IOC wants to block by construction of a floodwall.

It is this water flowing over the seawall upstream of Dam No. 15 that is in dispute.SCI calculates the volume to be 668 cfs flowing over the wall in the first 6,500 feet above the dam.Dr. Ashton computes 2,500 cfs in the first 3,000 feet, and Mr. Schliekelman computes approximately 3,500 cfs.
...
Dr. Ashton also refutes this SCI assumption repeatedly.I have seen flood flows spilling over the wall and know from personal observation that SCI's assumed conditions are incorrect.

There are other theoretical problems with the SCI analysis as described in Dr. Ashton's letter to me, but it is not necessary to understand these theoretical issues to get a clear understanding that SCI's water-volume calculation is in error.