Department of Water Resources
A daily compilation of significant news articles and comment
January 22, 2008
5. Agencies, Programs, People
FLOOD ZONE ISSUES:
Wading through flood mandate; Federal zoning maps raise questions about insurance - Stockton Record
NATOMAS LEVEES:
Natomas building restrictions could wash out $1B in projects; FEMA levee designation would block new construction starting next year -
Column: Leadership's key on flood hazard zone -
FLOOD CONTROL ISSUES:
Nothing pleasant about damage from flooding;
Valley leaders seek unified voice for water - Central Valley Business Times
Seven of eleven agencies have OK'd water management plan - Antelope Valley Press
FLOOD ZONE ISSUES:
Wading through flood mandate; Federal zoning maps raise questions about insurance
By Alex Breitler, staff writer
Patricia Chavez sat down and crunched the numbers: How much would flood insurance cost?
About $80 a month, she concluded.
Another bill for a 58-year-old woman facing rising health costs due to diabetes and coronary artery disease. Chavez, who is divorced, is already on a fixed income and is paying more each week for gas and groceries
"I'm in such a squeeze," Chavez said Friday, standing on the grassy levee separating her home from
She has questions, like so many other
Q: Flood insurance? What's this all about?
A: The Federal Emergency Management Agency this week issued preliminary flood maps for this area, and local officials say thousands of people are in the proposed flood zone.
In most cases, these people will be required to buy flood insurance by sometime in 2009.
Q: Didn't this already happen not so long ago?
A: It did. FEMA in 1995 identified 10 levees in and around
But FEMA agreed to delay the maps until the levees could be strengthened; $70 million later, in 2002, FEMA published maps that kept
Q: So what's changed?
A: Hurricane Katrina. The 2005 hurricane that ravaged
"We had probably one of the most recent checkups with a good bill of health," said engineer Chris Neudeck, whose company represents Delta flood districts, including the
"Now they're back," Neudeck said.
Q: Is my levee unsafe just because FEMA disaccredits it?
A: Not necessarily, Neudeck said.
The
But standards have changed. Homes in that neighborhood are built virtually on top of the levee, which engineers fear could affect its stability. By comparison, newer homes in south
Q: So do I live in a flood plain, or not?
A: Hard-copy maps sent by FEMA this week could be posted on the Internet as soon as next week, a county spokesman said. They will also be available for review at the Department of Public Works.
There is plenty of time to get the information you need. The maps won't be final - and insurance won't be required - for at least another year.
A public awareness campaign will include community meetings in specific neighborhoods.
Q: But I want to know now.
A: OK, there are several areas where residents will most likely need flood insurance:
» The north and south sides of Smith Canal, from the Calaveras River south to the Stockton Deep Water Channel and east in some cases as far as West Lane.
» A portion of northwest
» Homes south of
» The Twin Creeks subdivision, just west of Interstate 5 and south of Bear Creek, because of encroachments, such as boat docks on the water.
Other areas have been awarded more time to prove their levees sufficient, but they're not off the hook altogether. This includes areas north of the
Still other areas may still be accredited, but only if some fixes are made to their levees in the next couple of months.
Q: Do I really need flood insurance?
A: FEMA says you do if you live behind any levee - accredited or not.
One out of every four of FEMA's flood claims is not in a high-risk flood zone. And, during a 30-year loan, you're three times more likely to suffer a flood than a fire, officials say.
That being said, the government can only force you to buy flood insurance if you own a house and have a federally backed mortgage. If you've paid off your house, you're off the hook.
So are renters, though they would be wise to consider flood insurance to protect their own belongings, FEMA said.
Q: When should I buy insurance?
A: If you find out you're in a flood zone, you might not want to delay.
Those who buy flood insurance after the maps become final, sometime in 2009, would pay more than $1,800 a year for a typical house.
If you bought flood insurance today, you'd likely pay $317 a year until the maps are final, and then you'll be grandfathered in at less than $1,100 - about $700 less than those who wait. The lower rate remains in effect as long as your policy is continuous.
Q: In what other ways can this affect me?
A: Like they did 12 years ago, local officials may seek to improve flood protection by raising money through voter-approved assessments.
As one potential fix, a flood gate could be placed at the head of
The cumulative cost of these types of projects is uncertain, said Steve Winkler, the county's deputy director of Public Works. And some of the work could take four years or longer, well beyond the flood insurance deadline.
The good news is that once the work is done, insurance rates could go down.
Q: Is this likely to happen again?
A: It could. Flood protection standards are constantly changing.
A new law in
A wild card in all of this is global warming, which many experts say will cause sea levels to creep higher, placing more pressure on the water side of levees. Not only that, but climatologists believe warmer, more intense storms could quickly melt the Sierra's snowpack, causing river levels to rapidly rise and trigger flooding.
"My house would be under water if these levees ever did break," Chavez said. "But in
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080120/A_NEWS/801200327
NATOMAS LEVEES:
Natomas building restrictions could wash out $1B in projects; FEMA levee designation would block new construction starting next year
By Celia Lamb, staff writer
At least $1 billion in construction projects might be delayed -- or even canceled -- as the Natomas area faces stringent restrictions on new construction following an Army Corps of Engineers report released this week.
The federal agency concluded the Natomas basin's flood risk might be three times greater than previously thought.
Federal Emergency Management Agency representatives said the agency plans to give Natomas a flood map designation that would effectively block all new construction projects in the flood-prone area. It also would require flood insurance for all buildings with federally backed mortgages.
"I am very frustrated and very angry with both the Corps and FEMA," Sacramento Mayor Heather Fargo said.
"There is not a city in
The threat of a moratorium is likely to curtail builders' and developers' plans for the year.
The cut-off date for legal permit applications is Dec. 8, said Bob Thomas, the city's development services director.
Anybody who pulls a permit by then and begins substantial construction within six months would have a legal permit.
"Right now, what's hot in Natomas is the commercial market," Thomas said.
Although residential permit applications have dropped from about 4,000 per year to merely dozens per year, commercial developers want to build because they see 8,258 homes planned.
"Natomas is bigger than most other cities in our region," Thomas said.
About $1 billion of construction projects are planned this year and an equal amount next year. And that's just bricks and mortar, not carpets, paint, furniture and other items that would go into buildings. Add the construction jobs and the retail and other after-market jobs that would follow, and "this has an economic impact far beyond $1 billion per year," Thomas said.
Natomas went through a building moratorium in the mid-1990s, but the community wasn't as much of an economic engine then.
"Natomas has become a political football in flood protection," Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said.
"We don't endorse (FEMA's decision), and we certainly look to have a lively debate with those agencies over whether this is the appropriate designation."
"I live in
Builders forced to adjust
Alan Neuman,
"What was so right in 1998 that is so wrong today?" he asked, referring to a certification of the levee system nine years ago.
Beazer, one of several companies already building in Natomas, plans to start construction on houses at a new project called Natomas Field later this year as its other communities sell out. Neuman said the moratorium won't keep that project from opening, but it might force the company to alter its plans for Natomas Field, which consists of 300 finished lots off
Beazer executives had hoped to pull permits a few at a time. Now, the company could be forced to obtain them in bulk to beat the December deadline. Doing that would require a large, up-front cost because a majority of the fees charged by the city, which can amount to tens of thousands of dollars per lot, are assessed at the time that building permits are picked up.
If the company gets the permits all at once, it must also commit to putting concrete in the ground within six months, Thomas said. The six-month lag time for construction means work such as foundations, not just grading and ground preparation, he said.
"It's going to take people who have a deep pocket to do that," he added, because the investment wouldn't pay off until the housing market picks up.
It's a matter of 3 percent
The city and
"We concluded the
The Army Corps investigation found the levee protecting Natomas along the east side of the
"This is not about public safety," Thomas said. "This is about insurance and liability.
20 feet up
FEMA officials said the agency plans to kick-off a process this week to remap Natomas into an "AE" zone. The AE designation would require builders to put the bottom floor of new buildings up to 20 feet above the ground level in much of Natomas, effectively stopping new projects.
FEMA plans to issue a map in June that would take effect in early December, said Kathy Schaefer, a regional engineer with FEMA.
The moratorium would affect homes, businesses and public facilities, including a planned library and high school.
Fargo, who is also chair of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency's board of directors, said local officials have asked Rep. Doris Matsui to intervene with a Congressional action overturning FEMA's decision. Lauren Smith, Matsui's spokeswoman, said Matsui's top priority is to explore avenues for public safety projects, such as a planned fire station, to move forward.
"If and when a legislative solution is the best option for the citizens of the region, that is an option I will consider," Matsui said in a statement. "Right now, we must keep our focus on continuing progress in our flood protection and keeping the people safe."
"People currently under construction can complete whatever they're building," she said. "We're analyzing at what point we have to cease issuing permits."
Call for adding insurance
Officials urged Natomas property owners to buy flood insurance before FEMA's planned AE designation takes effect so they could take advantage of lower rates. Flood insurance could cost three times as much under the new designation, but previously purchased policies would be grandfathered in.
About 43 miles of levees surround the 53,000-acre Natomas basin. In 1998, the Army Corps certified the Natomas levees as meeting the 100-year flood level required by FEMA to lift building restrictions.
But new standards and better data about levee failures changed things.
"Over the past 10 years, important levee repairs and improvements have been made," Chapman said. "That was all good work and needed to happen. It's just that now we know more than we did in 1997."
The Army Corps decertified the Natomas levees in July 2006 following a SAFCA study that found underseepage problems. FEMA followed with a warning that it intended to designate the basin as a flood risk area during a lengthy remapping process. In September, FEMA turned down a request by local officials for an "A99" designation, which allows normal development, and suggested the city seek the "AR" rating, which would allow only infill projects.
In its recent analysis, the Army Corps looked at two stretches of
The state Department of Water Resources is working on an analysis of the
The Army Corps concluded in December it could not certify the levees for the AR zone. It sent the analysis to West Consultants Inc., Shannon & Wilson Inc. and GEI Consultants Inc.
"Because of the magnitude of what we found, we did have this reviewed by external peer review people, and they backed us up," said Roger Henderson, assistant chief of the geotechnical and environmental engineering branch of the Army Corps'
SAFCA has a plan for levee improvements that would bring Natomas up to 100-year flood protection, equal to a 1 percent chance of flooding in any year, by 2010.
"SAFCA has a good plan to fix those levees," Chapman said.
Natomas levees: A look back
Mid-'90s: First Natomas building moratorium due to inadequate levee protection
1998: Army Corps certifies the Natomas levees as meeting the 100-year flood level required by FEMA to lift building restrictions
July 2006: Army Corps decertifies the Natomas levees following SAFCA study that found underseepage problems
December 2006: FEMA warns it plans to designate the basin as a flood hazard area during remapping process
September 2007: FEMA turns down request by local officials for an "A99" designation, which allows normal development
December 2007: Army Corps declines to certify levees with an "AR" designation, which would allow only infill projects
Dec. 8, 2008: Final deadline to pull permits before moratorium stops development #
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2008/01/21/story11.html?t=printable
Column: Leadership's key on flood hazard zone
By Marcos Breton, columnist
In the film "Jaws," Roy Scheider played a police chief desperately trying to close the beaches of his town after a great white shark devoured a resident.
But the conniving mayor overruled him. The economic necessity of beaches jammed with consumers trumped public safety. And it was fine, until the water ran red, people died and public outrage followed.
Welcome to
The city depends on North Natomas as a revenue generator like the beaches of fictional
But the federal government says levees protecting
There is no American city more in danger of massive flooding than
That could take years, would be completed in 2010 at the earliest, would be a huge blow to a city already $55 million in the red.
It's the opposite of "Jaws." Public safety trumps economic necessity.
But you know what? People are still going to get hurt. A flood is still going to hit
"We have a really bad budget situation that is getting worse daily, and we don't know when it will bottom out," said Russ Fehr,
The fact is,
This is not to suggest that public safety should be compromised. But we can't be blind to the economic toll of paying for public safety.
What will it do to property values? Will FEMA – the same people who bungled Katrina – place other moratoriums in other parts of
Meanwhile, Mayor Heather Fargo and her crew came across last week like the mayor in "Jaws" – only less powerful, since his beaches were being closed and all he could do was scream about it.
When
On Friday, Rep. Doris Matsui, D-Sacramento, easily rebuffed
How could
We'll leave that for another day – and the fact that Fargo, the local flood protection expert, seemed as shocked as everybody else by FEMA's action.
It's time for someone in the city – will a leader please stand up? – to articulate the right message:
Fix the levees, make people safe, but don't take years and years doing it because that will bring devastation of another kind. #
http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/648176.html
FLOOD CONTROL ISSUES:
Nothing pleasant about damage from flooding;
Contra Costa Times – 1/20/08
By Lisa White, staff writer
In the 15 years Molly Romero has lived on
"The creek becomes this torrential river that goes underneath our house and all the way across the street," said Romero, 43.
"This time around (the water) only came up to our garage door and it didn't fill our swimming pool with mud, so it wasn't as bad," Romero said. "But we still had 3 feet of water in the street."
Installing back flow prevention devices, clearing the creek of silt and other debris and removing leaves from the catch basins immediately before the storm reduced the flooding, Public Works Director Steve Wallace said.
But these are temporary fixes.
The long-term solution to
"A project of this size, there's no way a small city can do it; we really need federal participation," Wallace said.
But depending on federal dollars means slogging through a slow and uncertain annual appropriations process. And the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which is designing the flood basin, requires a lengthy, nine-stage feasibility study before construction can begin on 9 acres on
Using computer modeling to figure out where storm runoff would cause the creek to overflow, the Army Corps determined that flooding could cause $3.9 million in damage annually, Connaughton said.
In the second phase of the feasibility study, the Army Corps is looking at the full range of options for solving the flooding problem and considering the costs and environmental impact associated with each.
"The end product is they will have a recommended plan and it will be the biggest bang for the buck," Connaughton said.
Although the city lost its bid to buy the former
Mayor John Hanecak said residents rejected the idea of using bonds to pay for the flood basin in a survey two years ago, but the idea is still on the table.
"Absolutely, we are considering it. And we will consider it again, especially when we have the details this next part of the (feasibility) study will provide," Hanecak said.
Rob Hicks' property has flooded twice in the three years his family has lived on
"We went to meetings and all they give us is talk," he said. "We're paying our taxes, we should get something for that." #
Valley leaders seek unified voice for water
By Steve Olson, staff writer
Federal, state and local leaders in water-related issues are joining forces to focus years of sometimes disparate planning and strategizing into a single, regional water management plan for the San Joaquin portion of the
The new plan is called the San Joaquin Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP).
Directing the building effort is Kathy Wood, a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water issues specialist “on loan” to
Ms. Wood normally supervises the work of the bureau’s Resources Division for South Central California. Prior to that, she worked with wildlife and water-related issues in the southwestern
According to David Zoldoske, director of
Ms. Wood’s assignment is to help build a single water-management coalition representing eight
It’s a big job.
“You turn on your tap at home and get water. You go to the supermarket and you can buy veggies. We want to be able to sustain that,” says Ms. Wood in summarizing the
The combination of increasing statewide population growth, multiple drought years, and an aging water storage and conveyance infrastructure has placed an unprecedented strain on
“The system is crashing” is not an overstatement, she says.
Many people recognize it and for years have been working to correct the problems. However, much of the
The goal of IRWMP is to equally promote and benefit all interests in the valley, and ultimately help the state resolve broader water issues.
The effort has required both legal and financial support supplied at the federal and state levels. Work first started in 2005 when
As water is a key element in achieving the partnership goals, the federal and state efforts were combined to help ensure success.
Working groups representing different stakeholders already have been established and are meeting to discuss all water issues to be addressed under the valley master plan, says Ms. Wood.
A number of general priorities have been established by the working groups. One is to strengthen the levees in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the
Other identified valley objectives are to augment surface and groundwater banking programs, develop and implement water quality and salinity management systems, expand environmental restoration and management strategies, expand agricultural and urban water-use efficiency programs, and improve water conveyance systems.
The overriding goal is to “make this effort an implementation solution, not just another plan for the shelf,” says Ms. Wood.
Stakeholders participating in plan development so far include irrigation district managers, water agency members, water resource engineers, government officials, agribusiness representatives, public works managers, representatives
of industries and communities relying on water, and environmental groups.
Leaders have committed to have a formal IRWMP ready to provide the governor in December 2008. Work will continue with input from all working groups through that time.
“This is a big project,” says Mr. Zoldoske. “With all the projected water shortages ahead, it is imperative that we put together a comprehensive plan to address this issue.” #
http://www.centralvalleybusinesstimes.com/stories/001/?ID=7607
Seven of eleven agencies have OK'd water management plan
By Alisha Semchuck, staff writer
PALMDALE - Seven of the 11 lead agencies that participated in the Antelope Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan have approved the document intended to ensure enough water for the Valley, now and in the future.
Members of the Antelope Valley State Water Contracts Association board, the Joint Powers Authority comprising representatives from Antelope Valley-East Kern Water Agency, Palmdale Water District and Littlerock Creek Irrigation District, voted unanimously in favor of the document Thursday night.
All 11 agencies must adopt the plan by the Jan. 28 deadline in order to compete for up to $25 million from a state grant that would help pay for priority projects identified in the document, such as water banking and conservation, flood management and habitat restoration.
The agencies also are required to adopt a groundwater management plan, noted Curtis Paxton, interim general manager for the water contractors association. He explained that adoption of the groundwater plan, in addition to the integrated plan, provides the
The document involved "a lot of work, and a lot of meetings," said water association board member Dick Wells, the president of the Palmdale Water District board who participated in a year's worth of stakeholder meetings. He told his board colleagues that he was "glad to see Palmdale (City Council) adopt" the plan.
Palmdale City Council members voted 5-0 in favor of the regional water plan at their Wednesday night meeting, roughly a week after conducting a joint workshop with the Palmdale Water District to inform the public of details contained in the document.
"Those experts were good," said association board Chairwoman Barbara Hogan, referring to Ken Kirby of Kirby Consultants, who facilitated the workshop with a panel of water professionals that answered attendees questions.
"It was a good team effort, getting the speakers there, a good mix of people," Paxton said.
"It was very effective," Hogan added. The consensus was that the workshop helped clear away any doubts or concerns that two or three folks expected to vote on the plan had expressed.
Hogan, a board member of Littlerock Creek Irrigation District, said that agency unanimously approved the document Wednesday night. Los Angeles County Waterworks District 40, Lancaster City Council, AVEK and Rosamond Community Services District already had adopted the plan.
The Palmdale Water District board will vote on adoption on Wednesday following a public hearing on the topic. Though the majority of board members have talked favorably about the plan, the one holdout could be newly elected Director Jeff Storm, who has claimed that the plan includes "toilet-to-tap" projects, an allegation disputed by water experts who attended the stakeholder meetings.
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts 14 and 20 are slated to vote that same date during a meeting at department headquarters in
The Quartz Hill Water District board has slated a special meeting and public hearing at 5:30 p.m. Thursday to vote on the document, agency General Manager Chad Reed said.
"The board of directors of Quartz Hill Water District have all given (the plan) positive reviews," Reed said. "They think it seems like a great document. As we've been doing different drafts, I've been sharing information with them, so they're very aware of the content.
"I don't see where there will be any opposition."
Reed said he foresees a 4-0 vote, only because Director James Powell will be unable to attend the special meeting.
"But," Reed added, Powell has remarked "numerous times (that plan) is the way of the future for the Valley." #
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://listhost2.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