Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
October 3, 2007
5. Agencies, Programs, People
NATOMAS LEVEE UPGRADE:
Massive levee upgrade is near; Some families will be uprooted as vulnerable flood shield is built up - Sacramento Bee
Stanislaus supervisors miss levees deadline; Government asked for safety information on four in county - Modesto Bee
YUBA AREA LEVEES:
Yuba votes to issue bonds for levees - Sacramento Bee
All in favor of levee loan; Yuba supervisors OK millions for matching funds - Marysville Appeal Democrat
Sutter County OKs levee money - Marysville Appeal Democrat
Letter to the Editor: One of most flood-prone cities -
PASO ROBLE’S RATE INCREASE:
Paso council dumps flat water fee system after community uproar; After community uproar, the council unanimously approves a usage-based structure, with increases -
NATOMAS LEVEE UPGRADE:
Massive levee upgrade is near; Some families will be uprooted as vulnerable flood shield is built up
Sacramento
By Matt Weiser, staff writer
The biggest levee construction effort in modern
Thousands of people will be inconvenienced and a busy highway altered as work begins next summer on a massive new levee.
The three-year project is designed to protect the basin's 70,000 residents from a 200-year flood along the Sacramento River, which joins the
And some people, like
The farming couple, both 82, have been told they must sell or move their home next year to make way for the big, new levee. It will extend 300 feet farther inland and 3 feet higher than the current levee.
Hundreds of
The project is crucial to the region, said Stein Buer, executive director of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. It is designed to double flood protection in the basin.
It also might be a last chance, Buer said: Funding is available for the $400 million-plus project, and there's still room on the ground to build it before development adds even more homes to Natomas, tucked in one of the deepest flood basins in the state.
"This is really the last opportunity we have to build a really stout levee," Buer said. "Without a doubt, it's unprecedented in terms of its size for
The project became necessary after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ruled in 2006 that Natomas levees don't meet new underseepage criteria, largely because they were built on deep layers of sand. As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is likely to impose development restrictions next year, and residents are now required to buy flood insurance.
The new, more robust levees are designed to first restore that basic 100-year certification by 2010, and then boost protection to the 200-year level by 2012. The project has two draft environmental impact reports, which have been completed. SAFCA has set a public hearing on both reports for Oct. 18, with a vote planned Nov. 29.
The project will improve nearly 25 miles of levees on three sides of Natomas. In addition to buying lots of land and moving lots of dirt, officials will also have to close or reroute Highway 99 temporarily to rebuild the levee underneath it. Drainage canals and wildlife habitat also will be reconfigured.
Initially, 30 percent of the cost will be funded by the parcel tax approved by
The project also introduces a new levee design to the region. Buer calls it an "adjacent" levee. "Piggyback" might be better.
Along most of the
The idea is to bolster the existing levee against seepage and high water. In the north part of the basin, this new levee will stand 3 feet higher than the existing levee.
SAFCA plans to buy land and structures to make room for the wider levee, plus a maintenance and habitat corridor.
In the north, affected properties are mostly agricultural.
Burton Lauppe, a World War II veteran, built the tidy stucco house himself in 1955. He may also lose three barns and several outbuildings to the levee project.
"I'm still kinda sick about it. We've been living here all these years," he said. "Where do we go when we leave here? Do we go to
As construction moves south, more homeowners will be affected. In some cases, Buer said, engineers may allow homes to remain, with the new levee built around them. Relief wells would drain off seepage.
But such wells usually have a lifespan of 20 years. After that, these property owners may still be forced to move.
Buer could not estimate how many homes will be affected in the southern portion of the project.
"As we approach each situation, we will look to see if there's a way we can modify the design to minimize effects on structures," he said. "I can't tell you how many structures will be impacted because we're going to try to minimize that."
Possibly thousands of trees will be cut down to accommodate the new levee. But thousands of new trees will be planted in a habitat corridor following the inland edge of the new levee.
Some mature trees will be left in cutouts within the new levee to retain habitat while new trees mature. Later, the original trees will be cut down and cutouts filled in to complete the levee.
In the long run no trees -- only grass -- will be allowed to grow on the new levee.
To get dirt for the new levees, SAFCA plans to reconfigure some land within the Natomas basin. Wetlands on
But new wetlands will arise from farms owned by the Natomas Basin Conservancy. When the new levee is done, there will be a net increase in wildlife habitat, said John Roberts, executive director of the conservancy.
But there will be temporary losses.
"When the disruption occurs, we'll probably be a little unhappy about it," said Ron Mullen, a
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/411732.html
Stanislaus supervisors miss levees deadline; Government asked for safety information on four in county
By Michael G. Mooney, staff writer
Three of the four levees, which total about 31 miles in length, protect orchards, farmland and ponds adjoining the
Stanislaus Public Works Director Matt Machado said it appeared that no homes, businesses or vital county assets were protected by the levees.
"Two of the levees appear to be owned and controlled by the federal government," Machado said Monday. "The others may be privately owned. We're not sure."
None of the levees is in separate reclamation districts, which use levees, ditches, pumps or other devices to protect land against flooding.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency is updating its levee map in
A nationwide review of levees was launched after those in
All levees shown on federal flood protection maps must be reaccredited, meaning those responsible for the flood protection barriers must be able to document that the structures are capable of withstanding a 100-year flood. A 100-year flood is a major event with a 1 percent chance of occurring in a given year.
Stanislaus officials missed an Aug. 29 deadline to give FEMA information about the four levees in the county or seek a time extension of up to two years to respond.
By missing the deadline, FEMA officials said, the four levees likely will be dropped from the new FEMA flood insurance rate map for
"I probably dropped the ball on this in not getting this back to the (Board of Supervisors)," said Stanislaus Chief Executive Officer Rick Robinson. "FEMA should have been contacted."
Machado said the county has received draft copies of the new FEMA map and has 30 days to respond but cannot extend its review beyond that one-month time frame.
"We still have time to comment," Machado said.
Affected property owners, however, still could face an increase in their flood insurance premiums, if they pay them. Insurance is not required.
It wasn't clear Monday how many property owners would be affected, but Robinson and Machado said the number was small.
No money for study, repairs
Robinson said the county has no money budgeted to conduct an extensive study of levee conditions, let alone make repairs to the earthen structures.
County officials said a preliminary review shows that responsibility for the levees likely rests with the federal government and-or private landowners.
"The question becomes," Robinson said, "how many hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars does a county government spend to benefit a relatively few landowners?"
Machado noted that Stanislaus soils can be quite sandy, adding it might be appropriate for the four levees to be dropped from the FEMA flood protection maps so as "not to give people false hope."
One of the levee-protected sites, located east of
A second levee near Riverbank, Machado said, protects water ponds operated by the old Army ammunition plant off
The levee west of
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/82203.html
YUBA AREA LEVEES:
Yuba votes to issue bonds for levees
MARYSVILLE -- The
The bonds will be backed by the general fund, Supervisor Dan Logue said, but the $2 million annual debt service can met if only 150 building permits -- and accompanying fees -- are approved annually.
The vote assures a commitment of $138.5 million from the state Proposition 1E Bond to build a new setback levee along a stretch of the
Logue said he understood the risk to having the bonds backed by the general fund, but "we've got to keep the community safe."
As part of the funding package, the board agreed to a reduced contribution from landowners in the flood-prone
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/411940.html
All in favor of levee loan; Yuba supervisors OK millions for matching funds
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 10/2/07
By Andrea Koskey, staff writer
“I’m very happy,” said
The approval says the county intends to fund $23.3 million as a local match of a $191.8 million setback levee along the
“I look at this $138 million as an opportunity knocking on our doors,” said Supervisor Mary Jane Griego, who represents south county.
“It’s an opportunity to provide safety, economic viability and to make the south county really what it is, that is the best.”
In August, an eligibility letter was received by the county stating it could receive $138.5 million for the project, if the remaining $53.3 million is paid by the county.
County officials presented a plan to the supervisors, outlining $30 million to be paid by landowner impact fees, while the rest would be up to the county, which could be funded through a variety of options.
The county intends to borrow the remaining $23.3 million through certificates of participation, meaning loans will be taken out against county assets, such as property. Repayment of the loan, county officials hope, will come from impact fees from future development or through an assessment district.
“This financial plan doesn’t come without risk to the general fund,” said County Administrator Robert Bendorf. “I also don’t feel there is a question in the board’s desire to complete the project because of the benefits it will bring to residents.”
Public safety is a top priority of Supervisor Dan Logue and one of the main reasons he supports moving forward with the repairs.
“I live behind those levees, and I’ve seen them destroy the county twice. You’re talking $23 million to fix the levees, but if it breaks again, you’re talking $2 billion,” to repair damage, Logue said. “I think public safety is our highest call (as elected officials). For that, I am prepared to take on that risk.”
Supervisor Don Schrader said although the levees are still owned by the state, improvements need to be done to maintain and public’s greater good.
“Do I have concerns? Yes,” Schrader said. “But I think it’s critical we fix out levees. I’ve lived through the floods and it’s not a pretty sight. It is a devastating experience.”
This debt is the direct responsibility of the county if all layers of protection - the impact fees and assessment districts - which had some supervisors questioning the repayment suggestions.
County staff estimates the total annual payment over a 40 year time period to be $2.1 million. Without an alternate funding source available, that money would need to come out of the county’s general fund.
During workshops on the issue last week, Supervisor John Nicoletti had some concerns over risking the general fund for one area of the entire county. Tuesday night, those concerns were gone.
“I have no more questions and no more reservations,” he said prior to making the motion to approve. “We’ve all experienced enough to know it is time to take a stab at making the finest levees in the state of
Supervisor Hal Stocker said this is an opportunity that can’t be passed up.
“I don’t think we can afford not to fix out levees,” he said.
Some residents attended the meeting intending to argue in favor of the improvements but found they didn’t have to.
“I was very surprised,” the supervisors voted unanimously, said Amanda Blackwood, 24, of
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/county_54813___article.html/million_levees.html
Sutter
Marysville Appeal Democrat – 10/2/07
By Robert LaHue, staff writer
The seven-figure gamble
On a unanimous 4-0 vote Tuesday night, supervisors approved providing an additional $1 million for the project’s local match. Supervisor Larry Munger was absent.
The boost in contributions increased the county’s contribution for the local match to $1.6 million, plus $1.3 million from Calpine flood control payments to the county.
The Yuba City City Council approved adding an additional $1 million to its share of the local match last week, bringing the city share to $1.6 million. Levee District 1 will contribute $750,000.
“For anybody that knows where Star Bend is ... it’s a very dangerous point on the levee during the flood,” LD 1 General Manager Bill Hampton told the supervisors.
The $20.7 million setback levee project is being considered to receive part of $211 million of early funding from the Department of Water Resources from Propositions 1E and 84, passed by
Public Works Director Doug Gault said the state’s contribution – up to $16.33 million – is substantial but not what was anticipated. LD 1 had until today to obtain the funding.
All $2.9 million of the county’s contribution is intended to be a loan to the Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, a joint venture of cities, levee districts and Sutter and
But supervisors said that the ability to fix the Star Bend levee, an area pinpointed as a danger spot in a flood situation, is worth the risk of not getting the money back in the future.
“I think the citizens of
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/million_54807___article.html/levee_county.html
Letter to the Editor: One of most flood-prone cities
By David H. Lukenbill, Senior Policy Director,
Re "Waters may rise, but so will region's readiness," editorial, Sept. 29: It is certainly prudent to be prepared for the inevitable flood that will happen in the Sacramento region if we continue to fail developing a flood protection strategy that involves reaching the gold standard of flood protection -- a 500-year level -- as our long-range goal.
But one would think that celebrating the reaching of a 200-year flood level, considering
However, if the eventual goal was reaching the 500-year level, as virtually all other major river cities in the nation have, including
http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/411444.html
PASO ROBLE’S RATE INCREASE:
Paso council dumps flat water fee system after community uproar; After community uproar, the council unanimously approves a usage-based structure, with increases
By Leah Etling, staff writer
Paso Robles’ City Council revised the city water rate structure Tuesday night in response to complaints about planned increases in customers’ flat rates to pay for the Nacimiento Water Project.
The 5-0 vote to approve a usage-based fee structure came about 10:45 p.m. after vigorous public discussion.
“This council does not want to take your money,” said Councilman Fred Strong. “We do not want to make a profit on anything.”
About 100 residents came to the meeting, many to urge the council to roll back a flat fee increase that was approved during the summer to pay for the city’s portion of the Nacimiento pipeline.
Some of the speakers had signed a petition calling for the council to repeal the water rate increases. The primary objection to the eventual $60 flat rate has been it would be absorbed equally by customers, no matter their level of water usage.
Comments from residents were mixed Tuesday. The majority of the almost 20 people people who spoke opposed any rate increase, arguing that the city did not need the Nacimiento project or that developers should pay for it. Others accepted the city’s argument that rates should go up and focused on telling the council how to charge for water.
Under the plan approved by the council in the summer, the flat rate portion of customers’ bills would have increased incrementally from its current $12, stopping at $60 in 2010.
The $178 million pipeline project from
During the meeting, City Manager Jim App App warned that without a new revenue stream from higher water rates, the city would have to dip into the general fund. The council considered two options as alternate ways to increase revenue and pay for the city’s portion of the water project.
The council chose the option that would not increase the flat fee. Instead, the per-unit cost of water would go up gradually from its current rate of $1.28 to $4 in July 2010.
One unit is equal to 748 gallons of water.
Paso Robles’ portion of the Nacimiento project is estimated to cost $6.8 million per year.
If the council had not changed the rate structure, it would have assigned an election date and let the voters decide whether to let the $60 flat rate stand. #
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
No comments:
Post a Comment