[Water_news] 5. DWR'S CALIFORNIA WATER NEWS: AGENCIES, PROGRAMS, PEOPLE - 8/6/07

Department of Water Resources

California Water News

A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment

 

August 6, 2007

 

5. Agencies, Programs, People

 

FLOOD CONTROL ISSUES:

Wheatland levee reality; Town that was believed safe from flooding is now catching up - Marysville Appeal Democrat

 

Guest Column: Natomas flood risk exemption is bad idea - Sacramento Bee

 

 

Wheatland levee reality; Town that was believed safe from flooding is now catching up

Marysville Appeal Democrat – 8/5/07

By John Dickey, staff writer

 

Wheatland may seem an unlikely place for a flood.

Roy Crabtree, who has lived in the city for 44 years, has never seen the Bear River leave its banks south of the city. And if you ask people in town whether Wheatland would flood, most would say no, said the former City Council member.

“I just don’t think it’s a possibility,” said Crabtree. “Of course, I could be wrong.”

But the chance of a flood is prompting repairs to Reclamation District 2103’s Bear River north levee – work that will strengthen the levees against a big storm and take the city out of a proposed flood zone.

Wheatland is slated to be remapped into a proposed flood plain because the levees have not been certified to protect against a 100-year storm – they could be subject to underseepage problems that have caused other levees to fail. Federal Emergency Management Agency flood maps propose the city be made a special hazard flood insurance zone.

Perhaps more alarming is a recent study that found the city to be vulnerable to a 200-year flood, which has a 0.5 percent chance of occurring in any given year.

Though downtown Wheatland is on a ridge with some older sections high and dry, and the Bear River is small compared to the Feather and Yuba, a big enough storm centered over the river’s drainage area could still put much of the city under water.

 

Studies completed last year show that a 200-year flood event on the Bear River would flood most of downtown Wheatland, if a levee broke upstream of Highway 65.

“The majority of downtown Wheatland would be flooded,” said Ric Reinhardt, RD 2103’s engineer.

Residents surprised

That information might raise some eyebrows in the city of 3,500 people, where the conventional wisdom is that the founding fathers put the town on high enough ground to avoid flooding. The city has served as a refuge during floods. In both 1986 and 1997, American Red Cross flood evacuation centers were located at the high school.

“I think it was surprising to a lot of people,” Mayor Enita Elphick said of the city’s flood risk.

Some residents might recall Jan. 23, 1997, when half the city was briefly evacuated after the Dry Creek levee broke.

It’s doubtful that any would remember the 1903 flood, when the city was inundated with 2 feet of water on Main Street, and 8 to 10 feet from Main Street south, according to “The History of Wheatland,” published by the Wheatland Historical Society.

More than $10 million will be spent in levee repairs to protect the city.

An RD 2103 contractor started a project to build 30- to 40-foot deep slurry walls in vulnerable levee segments. Plans are to also widen a 1,300-foot levee section that has eroded, and to replace corrugated metal culverts under the Grasshopper Slough levee.

RD 2103 has hired Envirocon Inc. as its contractor for this year’s $3.5 million project, the first round of work to fix the Bear River north levee.

Reinhardt said another $10 million of work next year would be needed to put in deeper slurry walls 70 to 80 feet down and complete repairs. Funding is not in place yet for the next round of work.

Levee problems stem from the mid- to late 1800s when the embankment was built from whatever material was at hand along the river – dirt that was mostly porous sand and gravel that can cause a leaky levee. Part of the levee also sits on ancient river channels.

The combination makes for an unstable levee that is prone to underseepage and won’t pass new U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requirements – which could result in Wheatland being designated a special flood hazard zone, according to preliminary FEMA maps issued last year.

Possible building restrictions

If the maps become final, the city faces restrictions on building, and its residents will have to purchase flood insurance if they hold a federally-backed mortgage.

This year’s levee repairs are funded through an agreement between the city and developers of the Heritage Oaks Estates-East and Jones Ranch subdivisions.

In return for putting up about $4 million, a fair share methodology will be developed to reimburse them for their costs above what is needed to project their projects. The money would come from a city levee improvement development fee that is not in place yet.

RD 2103 levees need to protect a growing population that would result from big development plans for Wheatland. Developers have lined up city approval for projects with more than a thousand homes near the Bear River, on 400 acres that have been annexed to the city.

But unlike Yuba County’s Plumas Lake, where homes went in before the repairs are finished, the city won’t be issuing any building permits for the projects until the Bear River levee problems are fixed, said City Manager Stephen Wright.

City policies say flood protection has to be in place before the building starts.

“You don’t put people in harm’s way, and you fix the levees first,” said Elphick.

Reinhardt’s firm, MBK Engineers, of Sacramento, was hired to study the flood risks in 2005 after discussions by RD 2103 and Wheatland.
“They wanted to better understand what the risk was,” said Reinhardt.

The firm found that the Bear River north levee would not meet Army Corps standards, prompting the repairs.

Dry Creek a concern

The Bear River levee isn’t the only potential flood problem – the Dry Creek levee north of Wheatland is also suspect. RD 2103 has asked the state Department of Water Resources for $900,000 to study the levee.

“We’re looking at all the levees that protect Wheatland, also Dry Creek,” said Reinhardt. “But to date we’ve been unable to find funding to investigate those levees.”

Building permits will not be waiting on Dry Creek studies – even if that levee broke, it would not affect the development areas south of Wheatland, Wright said. So the city will go ahead and issue permits whether that levee needs repair or not.

The Bear River north levee repairs would protect the city’s general plan area south of downtown, said Reinhardt. Downtown Wheatland is on a ridge that would send Dry Creek flood waters west rather than south. #

http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/city_52142___article.html/levee_flood.html

 

 

Guest Column: Natomas flood risk exemption is bad idea

Sacramento Bee – 8/5/07

By Marc Raciot, former governor of Montana, serves as the president of the American Insurance Association, which represents approximately 350 major insurance companies

 

No one expected the unprecedented damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. Following this enormous tragedy, federal, state and local officials had to reassess flood risk in many communities. The flood risk in the Sacramento region quickly became a priority.

 

The Bee devoted considerable resources to asking the question: Could the Sacramento community be devastated by flooding like that in New Orleans and Biloxi? The answer The Bee found was worse than anyone expected.

 

The Bee's Deb Kollars concluded: "There is no major city in America more at risk of a catastrophic New Orleans-style flood than Sacramento. That is the firm and unnerving conclusion drawn from a Bee survey of the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the nation. ... Compared with other big cities, Sacramento is marked by a potentially deadly combination of geographic, hydrological and demographic factors unmatched anywhere in the United States."

 

Those dramatic conclusions should cause searing inquiry and very careful planning to prevent a devastating tragedy.

 

Unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be the case in the Golden State's capital city.

 

On the one hand, Sacramento local officials have taken a bold step with the approval of a $326-million plan to finance badly needed levee repair.

 

On the other hand, local governments have taken a very large and unwise step backward by deciding to request a waiver from the Federal Emergency Management Agency so development can continue unabated in the Natomas area before levees are repaired and brought up to minimum flood protection levels.

 

Seeking FEMA approval of an A99 zone, which would allow development to continue without limitation and require homeowners to carry flood insurance, is an extraordinary example of bad risk management and shortsighted public policy.

 

Approval of the A99 zone in Natomas would transfer the financial risk of unsound building policies to taxpayers across the country but does nothing to prevent losses or assist flooded homeowners. Since 1968, the federal government has underwritten flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program.

 

Adverse selection problems left no other option except for the federal government to assume the risks from flooding. Insurers and agents participate by providing underwriting and claims services to the flood insurance program, but the risk itself is borne by taxpayers. Moreover, the flood insurance program provides only a limited safety net.

 

It will be an ongoing challenge to ensure that homeowners in flood-prone areas such as Natomas buy and maintain flood insurance. Studies show that only about 50 percent of highest risk properties have flood insurance. In addition, 10 to 15 percent of flood policies lapse each year.

 

Whether provided by private companies or the federal government, insurance serves as an essential economic safety net in times of crisis. However, as welcome as an insurance check may be after disaster and injury, the best policies are mitigation and the prevention of foreseeable harm in the first place.

 

Insurers do not have a direct stake in the Natomas waiver debate, but the lessons insurers have learned from past catastrophes clearly warn that this is a bad idea that could set an even worse precedent for future land-use decisions.

 

After witnessing the Gulf Coast devastation, my hope was that such an indescribable tragedy would motivate policymakers forevermore to painstakingly confront and make the difficult decisions that clearly focus on saving lives and property. The consequences if a FEMA waiver is granted could be catastrophic for Natomas property owners if a late winter "Pineapple Express" rain storm quickly melts the snowpack and overruns the rivers. Federal, local and state policymakers should revisit the wisdom of seeking waivers in Natomas. #

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/307897.html

DWR's California Water News is distributed to California Department of Water Resources management and staff, for information purposes, by the DWR Public Affairs Office. For reader's services, including new subscriptions, temporary cancellations and address changes, please use the online page: http://listhost1.water.ca.gov/mailman/listinfo/water_news. DWR operates and maintains the State Water Project, provides dam safety and flood control and inspection services, assists local water districts in water management and water conservation planning, and plans for future statewide water needs. Inclusion of materials is not to be construed as an endorsement of any programs, projects, or viewpoints by the Department or the State of California.