[Water_news] 1. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS - Top Item for 8/21/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation for DWR personnel of significant news articles and comment

 

August 21, 2007

 

1.  Top Item

 

 

Editorial: No floodplain hypocrisy

Council shouldn't oppose Jones' bill

Sacramento Bee – 8/21/07

At some point in the next few weeks, the Sacramento City Council will again be asked to stake out a position on government liability and floodplain development. When it does, it needs to be careful not to embrace a two-faced position.

 

At issue is the city's stance on a bill by local Assemblyman Dave Jones, D-Sacramento. Assembly Bill 70 would require cities and counties to share liability with the state when they approve new developments in the floodplain.

Jones notes that, because of recent court decisions, California already faces billions of dollars in potential property damage liability whenever a state-controlled levee fails.

 

The state is doing what it can to upgrade these levees. But Jones rightly notes that if local governments are going to keep approving new floodplain development, they should share liability with the state for that new development.

 

A reasonable piece of legislation? We think so. Without it, state taxpayers will continue to shoulder all the burdens of floodplain projects -- paying for both levee protection and for possible flood damage -- while local governments retain incentives to keep adding to that risk.

 

Not surprisingly, the council's law and legislation committee voted in May to oppose the original version of AB 70. Jones has softened the bill to win local support. Even so, the city's staff is again recommending an "oppose" position, saying it is unfair for local planning agencies to share liability when they have no control over the levees.

 

That position would carry more weight if Sacramento were taking prudent steps in Natomas, where the levees have been found to be substandard. Instead, city leaders recently asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency not to adopt any designations that would restrict development in Natomas. In other words, the city wants someone else -- federal and state taxpayers -- to bear all the risks of its decisions, while exerting no control over them.

 

That's an irresponsible position. The council should think hard before adopting it.#

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/335692.html